

^ » 



. " 3 S O ’ 

X <Y 


«>> .A 


^ d 


x° 

V 911 v nV o* ° * ° \ry\' ‘ °^ 

^ o am - •>•- «> 




*%•%. ~o“0^W^’ "V 'WBt& a <& %, ‘ 

^ y> <*£> v v^ <> Jv *° '\ v ^ ^V <r 

4,6^ . ^ N r d, ’ 

0 G " <b_ -0‘ *.* v 6 «^ 


,^ v ^ -1= 

</* 

V O '*, < s ^(3 

C #N SA ^V v,fi 

>, V' O-, > A 9 V * ' - *^_ - c . 

A\> ** ^>h<% * ^ ^ •* jA^tfVk L *?V .\\ 



8 ! -V * ' ^ ■ 

C> V . 

°° * 

* 4 1 



^ ^ o. - " : '’“®- 

*, h .4<p ..V 

,0' *■ ' 0 
-s a" 0- ’f .RS* 

^ ^ - * rCC 

%* <9 ~ A ' 




.\^ y ^ •; ISLM -" ^v 5 % ° wmw- a v ^ : 

• ** 4 ^ 38^4 ^ * \ £% + ^ v^_. ^ 

, O *, * * t O J o * k * a «:> A ', t 1 ' <6 

W •;«&-. ^ ^ f^T*' 

/ ^-.' '.)SR“ , > 00 - \f 

>IH‘ \# s * * T,y>> * ° N 0 ' -f°° * ' * 8 I A * \V . 47 3 N 0 s. 

> v v'wfefc*. > ,9 V ^^*°/- 'c* V' S S , >■■ j.0 1 

\, ^ V .av ^ \ ^ 

3 < » f r. • > ^ 

v 1 8 « ^P. A X c 0 N c « 7 0 

1 ^ » 

. $ O /r' 

* ,0O ’" rx/X^NSfflSJSSf « , . > 

° ^ > >?5 ^ ^ 

’ -'° °- »- -»'# .. e-. » ON o’ <?*. 



0 \ 



kV <p 







x v 

o o x 


c .V* ^ 

A 

_o- „• 11 ■ * *;<».' “’ y A c°" c * ’ 7 
0 ***nn*% * / ,% 

‘ X° °x. - 

> ^ v * 


■° N 0 ' 0^ * * * 0 /- '"6 
*, >* 4 VA %> 

’<s> .<\> 


* 8 I A 11 0C X 

\ • S 








r ^ aV 

<s> ,<9 


v * .A ^ 

s ' U . , . * o « K . ^ 

<t v 1 ° ft \gi o ^ G , l ‘ r 

^ Ap A * f ° 

^ V* t? 

,9’ t ' * 0 r CV 

^ A <* 



%■ 

o c 



<t 

G 



L « v 

1 8 ^ 

■<p 

Sk 

A /^/j 


-p V 





















































Co 

,> C> -A ^ 

^ J 0 « K * A 

* v JN'%, C 0 N c * "o. 




% •v, w , 
.,0^ « & » 

>> ^ 


... c. ^ ^ 

^ * A \» V <?* ^ '1 
C^ ^ /WW? v o > * *6 £* A 

^ ^ s S ,G v <\ ^ o * x * A 

^ - r$ * V I B * <Ji A . 0 N C 

0° <V v* *A^v.N <■ 

A v <= ; *: 

<r 




* 3 N 0 ° A ( 

,0^ * V * 0 A C 

A ?■ (5 a * 'f>. 

"“ *<' A' 

*<1> <& 



■h ' ) f~~k i w X^>l/ — ^ o , 

>*' *.«..s.% -n* . * 

. •> 

c x> 

C.v ^ o 
*. <*> o 

' V * * 

"*Y 

-< 




K 


' 1 * « /V ”" A c 
^ *f> A ■» 

•< A- V c 




\°<N 



^ A. 

-V * A^ r ^ * 0 N. 0 ^ N N * g I A*^ aN ^5^, * ■) N u 

V '"'■*> °* s? *<*o, ^ 81 V N s s ’*N > A 

"O *• <? <3. * *£> . S <* - A» 

° ■'*’ ,\' * <■ 




a" 1 


- ^ ^ - AX 

°,¥Mk ^ ,\v </v -; ^ 

' * • V '°* x >■'.c°_r A<' T * ss ^oN, ^ 

s v ^T//yV^2, *? v '^'. J 

- N* v 



A 

v 




O 

'*-»>*/’ .. %. aNs..,,V ; 

' v ^ ^ o t o V # c s ^ 7/ ^ ^ * v . 

^ J ^ ** ^ -- - “ ~<s> 



t „ n , t v^'N^ 1 * ,v-y,;; vN 


- % 




\° o,. ' 

*** A ^ ^ ’ o- 

’■-^°' , * 0 ./ s s-, N> 

' * 0 / N‘. V V -^- ■' ^ 

k v 

o 


^ A 

V? V' 


* - 
r ^ <V; 

= V A 

^/ 04,x V' x ^° N ° «X ,; * sS /V i 18 %% 

^ * c^w N ° G ♦ jmffffa z.% 



^ .0 m 0 ^ ^ 

^ ^ o /■ %> 

N c s- AVMyA ° Nv A 

^ s « Ss< ^i// /' j i z ^ v 

A . 0 



A‘ -* 

4 A 'N * 

O y / 

A M f ^ *V * 

t 0 * O. ,0 k 

L- ^ 


c A 
* ,v ^ 


/ 


wr$w * ^ * 

'..''' 4(1 VI1< <^”'“* x * a\ A c 0 >■ 

,/.“N 


^ 0 N ’■'*"' '<?. 

: %A : 

Jy ^ ^ o c^' 



M C 


v\ 





N ..A 


'» y VJV s3^~ <j ' J O ^ 

vx'S' ^ „ tA \0 C>. *a\-\* 

^ . S * * A , <N N 0^ ^ v * 0 /• "A \ 

^•V ■%. 'v ■ 
° ' J ,/. “ 






























































59th Congress, 
%d Session. 


SENATE. 


Document 
No. 139. 


VERBATIM REPORT 


‘ 

gy 
rvs 


FIVE DAYS’ 


CONGO DEBATE 

IN THE 


BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATI YES, 

FEBRUARY 20, 27, 28 ; 

MARCH 1, 2, 

1906. 


December 13, 1906.—Presented by Mr. Lodge 
and ordered to be printed. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1906. 











HT&siL, 

.{\3 


\°i o fc 






n cc 31 W 06 
0 t D.ofD. 


0 

• * ° 


c r c , 

, 6 c 

< 


4 

C » 

• < 

#4 

v -v 

• " 

« 

< 

c * < 

C 

A 

• 

* 

* < 

ti y <* 

# 6 

* 



« 

0 l 

<•' •- 

* « 

* < 4 

« 

‘ « 1 


c <» * •/ 

« « 

t *• *1 

♦* r 
C t < • 


* c V t 

< * 

« * 

c » 

* « 


< 

4 

■4 

e 

* 9f 


* f * 




« 

< 

« 


» # c 


<*« 


«■ 

« 


1 < r 


«» < • 
« 
«S v 

M 


4 

C « 

» I 

« » 

( * 










To. 10 - 


FIRST DAY’S DEBATE (FEB. 20TH). 


Q 


£ 


M. VANDER, VELDE’S OPENING SPEECH. 


M. Yanderyelde (Leader of the Belgian Labour Party) :—Gentle¬ 
men, the question which I have the honour of bringing before the 
House is not a party question. It is distinct also from the opinion 
which each of us may hold as to the advantages or the disadvantages 
of colonial enterprises in general. I should like, in making this 
interpellation, to be able to forget my republican convictions, as I 
should also like you to set aside your monarchial convictions. The 
whole subject resolves itself into this—whether the system adopted in 
the Congo does not involve nefarious consequences, as well for the 
natives, who are its victims, as for Belgium, its alleged gainer. I 
have brought this question before the house upon many occasions 
previously. I did so in 1895, when further advances were asked us 
to pay back the loan which Belgium had not authorised. Then, with 
M. Lorand, I brought the subject up again in 1900,* then in 1908,f 
and on two occasions in 1905. You know upon these occasions what 
was told us. First of all we were confronted with a non-possumus. 
The Congo State was, in so far as Belgium was concerned, a foreign 
State, so we were told. Then we were confronted with the charge 
that our action covered republican ideas, hostile to the work of the 
King. Finally, we were accused of being unpatriotic. We were told 
that we were assisting an English campaign against the Congo State, 
and, in the last resort, we were met with the general statement that 
the testimony which we invoked was exaggerated or untrue. Thus it 
was that, on the 2nd July, 1908, M. de Favereau, Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, said:— 

“ The Congo State can reply with assurance to the criticisms 
directed against it, for no other nationJ has done more than it has 
for the protection of the natives: ” 

And two years after, on the 28th February, 1905, the Minister again 
said:— 

“ M. Yandervelde will not listen to the protests which have arisen 
in America, as in Europe, against these abominable calumnies. They 

* Extracts from this debate will be found in “Affairs of West Africa ” (Lon¬ 
don, Heinemann; Paris, Challamel), by E. D. Morel. 

f An extensive report of this debate is given in “ King Leopold’s Rule in 
Africa” (London, Heinemann; New York, Funk & Wagnall), by E. D. Morel. 

t The Congo State as a “ nation ” is an entertaining thought. The Congo 
State is represented in Africa by 2,000 aliens to Africa, drawn from every point 
of the compass, and some 30,000 regular and irregular native troops. It is 
represented in Europe by the Sovereign, his Secretaries, their clerical staffs, and 
a Press Bureau. 


3 




4 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

have everywhere provoked denials from those who have lived in the 
Congo, who know what takes place there, and who, in the name of 
truth and justice, repudiate with indignation the attacks directed 
against the Administration of the Congo Free State.” 

Now, at the very moment the Minister was pronouncing these 
words, in February, 1905, the steamer which was bringing back the 
Commissioners of Inquiry was on its way, and was due to arrive at 
Antwerp. It would be very difficult to-day, I think, to reply to my 
interpellation by the same arguments. And, first of all, can it be 
seriously maintained that the State which we subsidise, which we 
shall inheret one day, which we can take over any day, is to us a 
foreign State? It has been repeatedly said that the Congo is a 
Belgian enterprise, and, under these circumstances, it is perfectly 
natural that Belgium should be interested in what takes place there. 
If, on the other hand, those who oantradict me still wish to refer to 
my republican convictions, I will answer to-day that those who pro¬ 
test against the Administration of the Congo State belong to all 
parties. Some of them are Liberals, some are Royalists like Felicien 
Cattier, others are Catholics and loyalists, like those missionaries * 
who have felt at length the imperious need of freeing their con¬ 
sciences. A few days ago the following passage appeared in the 
Annales du Sacre Cceur :— . 

“ We do not believe in the converison of the Congo State, and that is why we 
should be foolish to suspend or to cease our protests. It is our turn to take the 
offensive, and we do not need to have recourse to the weapons of calumny and 
untruth. Truth suffices for us, and there is more of it than is needed to show 
that the Congo State has not been blackened by Englishmen, Americans, or 
Italians.” 

The Mouvement des Missions Catholiques au Congo says:— 

“We must to-day submit to the evidence which has been produced. Every 
Belgian should obtain for himself the last number of this Bulletin,! and the last 
vestige of enthusiasm for the Congo will give place to disgust, which, in its turn, 
will be translated by a summons to the Congo State, either to place some order 
in its affairs, and not to continue to compromise everywhere the Belgian name, 
or to abdicate in the name of humanity, patriotism, and religion.” 

And if I am told that, in making these charges against the Congo 
Administration, I am associating myself with a campaign carried out 
in the interests of England, I repiy there is no English campaign. 
There is a campaign carried on in all countries, by Englishmen like 
the venerable Fox Bourne, like E. D. Morel, like the Bishops of 
Durham, Liverpool, and Rochester, like statesmen who are now 
included in the new Liberal Cabinet; by Americans like Mark Twain 
and Professor Reinsch; by Italians like Deputy Santini; finally, by 
Frenchmen like Paul Violet, the learned Catholic jurist, Francis de 
Pressense, Pierre Mille, or Anatole France, who said a few days ago 
only, with regard to the abuses which have taken place in the French 
portion of the Congo Basin: 

“ It is necessary for us Frenchmen to denounce first of all the crimes com¬ 
mitted in our name; our honour is involved, without reckoning that, speaking 
of what concerns us, what is our affair, we have a little more hope of not 
speaking in vain.” 

I will not, therefore, trouble myself longer with the charge of 
furthering foreign ambitions. There remains, then, a last argument 


* Roman Catholic Missionaries. 

f That is, the Bulletin containing the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 5 

which has been invoked against us, viz., that what we affirm is either 
exaggerated or calumnious. 

Henceforth, gentlemen, the reply to that is easy. But, first of all,. 
I would like to recall what I said a year ago in answer to M. Woeste, 
who had accused me of being the systematic adversary of the Con^o 
system:— 

“ 1 am systematically hostile, I replied, to a system which brings about the 
abuses which I have described, and, far from excusing myself, 1 am proud of 
the fact, and I say that it will have been to the honour of the Socialist party 
to have defended Belgium against herself, and for having appealed to public 
opinion in denouncing such occurrences.” 

M. Woeste: —Public opinion condemns you. It is not with you. 

M. Vandervelde :—It is possible that a section of public opinion 
is still ill-informed, but whatever may be done to prevent it, truth 
will finally be apparent to the eyes of all, and whatever may be your 
denials or your silence—for you never reply to our charges—Bel¬ 
gians will finally understand that Belgium owes it to herself, to her 
international good name, to insist that these abuses which compro¬ 
mise and dishonour her, shall be put down. 

Well, to-day, in order to repeat the language we used before, and 
in order to justify us at the same time from the reproach of having 
brought before this House exaggerations or calumnies, I have the 
right of invoking a final opinion, the opinion of the three men 
of conscience, heart and character^ who formed part of the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry which the British Government compelled the 
Congo State to send out. When this Commission was appointed, 
we certainly could not entertain much hope in regard to it. Its 
mandate had been limited in such a way that the accomplishment of 
its mission was impossible. It had to act “ conformably with the 
instructions of the Secretary of State.” Thereupon a renewed inter¬ 
vention of the British Government took place, with the result that 
the Commissioners’ mandate was enlarged, and it is thanks to that 
circumstance that we possess to-day documents which my colleague, 
M. Neujean, was abundantly justified in asking should be distrib¬ 
uted, and which every member of the House ought to read. In view 
of the moral responsibility which weighs upon each of us in this 
terrible question, I think that those of us who have not read the Re¬ 
port of the Commission of Inquiry have not fulfilled the most ele¬ 
mentary duty of the task which the electors of the country have con¬ 
fided in them (applause from the extreme left). 

I have said that this document suffices to justify all our charges. 

I am compelled, however, to make one reserve, because the Report 
of the Commission is not. complete. It contains the conclusion of 
the Commissioners, and an impartial resume of the testimony which 
was brought before them, but it does not include that testimony 
itself. We are told, in order to justify this omission, that a great 
deal of the evidence brought before the Commission would involve 
men who would not be in a position to defend themselves, and I rec¬ 
ognise that in that argument there is a grain of truth. I should 
have quite understood the position if the names had been published, 
but it would have been quite easy to have done what was done in the 
case of Consul Casement’s report in 1903, that is to say, to pro¬ 
duce the evidence, without giving the names of the persons affected 
thereby. 


6 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPEESENTATIVES. 


Moreover, the precaution which has been taken not to publish this 
evidence has been absolutely useless, because evidence produced by 
.the missionaries has been published, and, gentlemen, I only wish 
you could all read it.* 

The Report of the Commission gives us the abstract truth, but not 
the concrete truth, upon the frightful abuses committed in the Congo. 
We see at the present moment public sympathy profoundly moved by 
the murder of a poor little girl in Brussels. What is this crime, 
however horrible, when compared with the murder of thousands of 
human beings of both sexes, and of all ages, committed in the Congo 
by the soldiers of the Force Publique? Moreover, it is probable 
that the Congo State will not escape the onus of having to publish 
the Minutes of Enquiry, because we were able to read a few days 
ago, in the Mouvement Geographique , that Sir EdwaTd Grey, Brit¬ 
ish Minister for Foreign Affairs, has informed Mr. Morel that he 
intended to call the attention of the Congo Free State to the non¬ 
publication of the evidence. Once again will the Congo Free State 
be compelled to perform a duty which it ought to have accomplished 
without pressure. 

I now come to the Report itself, and I notice that it may be said 
to be divided into two parts; one part contains praise for what has 
been done in the Congo in the last twenty-five years; the other is a 
formidable indictment of the abuses of which the natives have been 
the victims. To deal with the first part. In a large measure I 
agree with the praise given. I admire, as do the Commissioners of 
Inquiry, the immense effort of persevering energy which was neces¬ 
sary to construct the Lower Congo Railway,! to create in this enor¬ 
mous territory a vast system of postal and telegraphic communica¬ 
tion, to provide the young colony with a powerful economic ma¬ 
chinery. But the real grandeur of the results obtained must make 
us all the more severe in considering the conditions under which the 
native population is placed. It has been said many times that the 
Congo State was formed, above all, with an object of civilisation 
and humanity. Reference has been made, and with truth, to what 
has been done to stop the sale of liquor, and, what is more essential, 
to suppress the slave traded Nevertheless, we find that, after twenty 

* This evidence was published by the Congo Reform Association in a pam¬ 
phlet distributed throughout England and America. It was translated by the 
Congo Reform Association, and published in the French language, in a pam¬ 
phlet sent out gratuitously by the Congo Reform Association to every member 
of the Belgian House of Representatives, and the Belgian Senate, and to every 
Belgian newspaper, including Le Peuple, which reproduced the whole of it, 
day by day, in its columns. 

t Constructed, not by the Congo Government, but by the individual deter¬ 
mination of Colonel Thys and his Companies. 

$The slave-raiding of half-caste Arabs has been suppressed, and the yoke 
of a new slavery fastened upon the people by the Congo Government, a slavery 
infinitely more destructive. Moreover, native villages are often compelled to 
sell members of the community to other villages against food-stuffs required 
of them by the Congo Government. Again, thousands of slaves are still de¬ 
spatched through Congo territory to the Portuguese ports in Angola. With 
regard to the liquor traffic, credit is due on this head to the Powers who col¬ 
lectively signed the Berlin Act. The Berlin Act prohibits the importation of 
liquor into the Upper Congo, just as it prohibited the importation of liquor 
into Northern Nigeria. A further note will be found on this subject later on, 
in connection with the Premier’s speech. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 7 

years, after the cessation of internal wars amongst the tribes, after 
the Arabs have been driven from the territory, when security reigns 
throughout the Colony/ 1 ' - the population is less numerous than it was 
before. An atempt has been made to explain this fact. It has been 
said that the depopulation has been due to epidemics, to smallpox, 
to sleeping sickness. And certainly, in some measure, this is true; 
but how can we explain the small resisting power of the natives 
against these epidemics? It is due to the system forced upon them, 
and to the inhuman treatment inflicted upon them. Similarly, in 
our industrial cities, thousands of workmen die from consumption; 
but why do they suffer more than do the moneyed classes? Because 
they are poorly fed and ill-treated f (applause from the extreme 
left). 

M. Caeluwaert : — That is very true. 

M. Vandervelde : — To support the statement that the depopula^ 
tion of the Congo is largely due to the system of extortion, of which 
the natives are the victims, I have the right to invoke the report of 
the Commission, which shows the frightful gulf which separates a 
system of rational colonisation, and a system of colonisation such 
as exists in the Congo. A system of rational colonisation, of ideal 
colonisation, which up to the present has only been realised in a 
very incomplete manner, would be to recognise native land tenure, 
and to recognise to the natives the right of exchanging the products 
of their free labour on fair terms. J 

Now, the Congo system is exactly the antithesis of the system of 
ideal colonisation which I have described, and I exaggerate in no 
way in saying that this Congo system is founded upon the confisca¬ 
tion of the land of the natives, upon forced labour, and a system 
of compulsion which brings about the most frightful abuses. 

I say first, upon the confiscation of the land of the natives. This 
is not a new charge. It was replied to formerly by saying, “ The 
Congo State has respected the property of the natives. It has left 
them the right of proprietorship over their fields and their huts. 
It has limited itself to taking that which it was entitled to—the 
vacant lands—the lands which were occupied by no one.” Gentle¬ 
men, there is in this statement a flagrant error, not to use a stronger 
expression. What the natives have been robbed of are not the lands 
which they have not occupied, but communal property which be¬ 
longed to their village communities, and which was indispensable 
to the development of the latter. What has been done towards the 
Congo native is precisely what might be done to-morrow if, in La 
Gampine or in the Ardennes, the ownership of the inhabitants in 

* This is a quotation from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, and is, 
of course, grotesquely inaccurate, as is the statement that inter-tribal warfare 
has been suppressed. 

f In other words, the material results of Congo State rule have benefited the 
white man, but destroyed the natives. 

t This system is everywhere followed in the West African possessions of the 
Powers, excepting in the Congo Basin and in part of the Cameroon territory. 
It is followed, therefore, in the French Dependencies of Senegal, and the West¬ 
ern Soudan, Guinea, the Ivory Coast, and Dahomey; in the British Depend¬ 
encies of the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Lagos, and Nigeria; in 
the German dependency of Togo. 

King Leopold did not perpetuate an old system (unless we go back to the time 
of the Pharoahs), but he invented a new one. 



8 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


their houses and in their fields which they cultivate was left to them, 
but if their communal rights, their heaths and the woods over which 
they preserve their rights of usage, were confiscated. 

In the Congo the individual ownership of the natives has been 
respected, but communal ownership has been suppressed, and this, 
moreover, is admitted by the Commission of Inquiry.* 

“ As the greater portion of the land in the Congo is not cultivated, this 
interpretation of the words ‘ vacant lands ’ concedes to the State an absolute 
and exclusive ownership over virtually the whole of the land, with this 
consequence, that it can itself dispose solely of all the products of the land, 
prosecute as a poacher anyone who takes from that land the least of its 
fruits, or as a receiver of stolen goods anyone who receives such fruit, forbid 
anyone to establish himself on the greater part of the territory. The activity 
of the natives is thus limited to very restricted areas, and their economic 
condition is immobilised. Thus applied, such legislation would prevent any 
development of native life. In this manner, not only has the native been 
often forbidden to shift his village, but he has often been forbidden to visit 
even temporarily a neighbouring village without special permit.” 

Well, gentlemen, by what name can we call this system? We 
were taught at school that, under the old regime , men were not free, 
that surfs were attached to glebe land. If this Congo system, which 
forbids natives from leaving their village and going to a neighbour¬ 
ing village, even for a few days, is not serfdom, what is it? (Inter¬ 
ruption. ) 

M. Anseele :—It is the system which we apply to the cattle on 
our frontiers! 

M. Vandervelde:— And is not the confiscation of the land on 
which natives exercise their rights of usage, and w T hich they consider 
as their communal property, an act of spoliation? This, moreover, 
was admitted recently by a missionary known to many of you, the 
Rev. Father Cus. 

“What are,” said he, “the land rights of the natives? Many in these 
days settle the question as they chose. But it ought to be studied on the 
spot. Those who have not studied it, ‘ I repudiate them, even if they are 
professors of Law.’ Natives of the Congo are not precisely nomadic, and, 
without having the notion of individual property, they have the notion of 
communal ownership. That, at any rate, is the case where we reside.” 
Q.—“ Then the State has nothing?” R.—“ I beg your pardon, and I desire 
that our views should be accurately known. There is in the Congo much land 
which can be truly called ownerless. The State can with justice acquire this 
land. That is not all. There is much land over which the natives, living in 
communities which are not very numerous, claim exclusive rights. Is it just, 
is it wise, to appropriate those lands without payment?” 

Well, gentlemen, what has been made a transaction in all the 
neighbouring Colonies—in French Congo, Cameroon, and Nigeria— 
the Congo State has always refused to do, and the consequence of 
this attitude is described in No. 11 of the Bulletin des Missions 
Catholiques au Congo , in the following terms:— 

“ Beyond the villages, and a restricted area of cultivated land around them, 
the entire country belongs to the financial companies or to the Congo State; 
no one can establish himself therein without their authority, and for the last 
two years this authority has been systematically refused to the Catholic 
Missions.”| 


* The basis of all native property in tropical Africa is communistic, and 
individual ownership, save in rare cases, is unknown in native law and custom. 
Therefore, in suppressing collective ownership, the Congo State has swept 
away native ownership in toto. 
t And to the Protestant Missions* 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


9 


To sum up, therefore, the Congo natives have been despoiled of 
their land, and the Commission admits that in many places it is 
impossible for them to trade, because all the fruits of the land belong 
to the State.* * * § 

But this is not all. After having taken their land, forced labour has 
been imposed upon them. I know that this system of forced labour 
is disguised under the words “ taxation in kind,” and we heard 
lately the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer \ declare:— 

“Does not taxation, and even the corvee, exist in Belgium? ” 

“ Moreover, the taxation in kind established by the Congo State only involves 
a light imposition. The natives are only asked to provide forty hours labour 
per month.” 

Now, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke in this manner, 
in July, 1903, the laws of the Congo had not, in point of fact, speci¬ 
fied any time for the duration of the forced labour imposed upon the 
natives. I The law of forty hours was then only projected, § and it 
was quite arbitrarily that the population was taxed. In certain dis¬ 
tricts worked by the Domaine Prive , the natives were compelled to 
bring in from four to eight pounds of rubber per month; in the 
A.B.I.R. district, twelve pounds of rubber per month; in the Mon- 
galla district eighteen pounds of lubber per month. 

It was a decision of the Boma Appeal Court which compelled the 
State to establish a more regular system, which is the law—or, to be 
more accurate, for we are dealing with an absolutism, the ukase —of 
18th November, 1903. By virtue of this decree, the native can be sub 
jected to forced labour, which must not exceed forty hours per month, 
but the Commission of Inquiry, which approves of this, which finds 
that this imposition is not too heavy, which considers that this forced 
labour is legitimate, declares at the same time that, throughout the 
country, the law of forty hours has been outrageously violated.|| 

When the Report of the Commission of Inquiry has been dis¬ 
tributed to you, I would ask you to give special attention, if you 
have not already done so, to what the Commissioners have to say 
upon the different forms of forced labour imposed upon the natives. 
There are four kinds, the tax in ground nuts, the tax in porterage, 
the tax in food-stuffs, and, finally and specially, the tax in rubber. 


* It is impossible for them to trade anywhere in the Upper Congo. 

t E. g., the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
for Belgium, of course. 

t In other words, the system of forced labour which had been enforced in the 
Congo since 1892 was absolutely illegal, according to Congo State law, and it 
was only when the publication of Consul Casement’s report, detailing this 
illegal practice, was imminent, that the Congo State hastened to make legal a 
system which had been illegally applied for thirteen years. Henceforth an 
illegal iniquity became a legalised iniquity. The term “ forced labour ” is, of 
course, a mere euphemism to describe a condition of servitude imposed upon 
the natives, which has no parallel in modern times, and few in ancient. 

§ Yet these Belgian Ministers spoke of it as an existing fact—they repeated 
what they had been told, voild tout. 

|| And always will be, for if it were applied the export of india-rubber would 
fall from 5,000 tons to 500 tons in twelve months, and the raison d'etre of the 
“ Congo Independent State ” would cease. King Leopold would, then, be only 
too delighted to hand over the Congo to the first-comer. 



10 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 


I will say nothing of the forced labour in ground nuts, with regard 
to which it seems that complaints have now ceased, but the Commis¬ 
sion notes that the natives are only compelled to this particular 
labour in a restricted area of the territory, in the Cataracts region, 
and that, as this trade does not bring in any benefit to the State, it 
will be probably replaced by another labour tax. 

As regards the porterage tax, it is not necessary for me to recall to 
you the fearful and murderous consequences which it had at the time 
when the Cataract Railway was being constructed, and before this 
railway was completed. Thousands of human lives were sacrificed 
on the road between Matadi and Stanley Pool; but, whatever may 
be the regrets with which we are inspired by this decimation of the 
native population, we must at any rate recognise that it has had the 
result of making the Congo exploitable, and in freeing the natives 
to-day of porterage ( corvee ) in that particular region. But, if it 
has disappeared in that region, it has been maintained in others. 
A porterage service is organised on the one hand towards Lakes 
Kivu and Tanganyika, and on the other hand towards the Lado 
Enclave, where, during the last few years, an enormous amount of 
war material has been accumulated.* Now, the Commission admits, 
from the reports of a large number of missionaries, that this system 
of porterage “ leads to the partial destruction of the population 
which is called upon to submit to it.” 

Then comes the forced tax in food-stuffs. The natives are com¬ 
pelled to furnish various articles for the victualling of the stations, 
and notably native bread (kwanga). The Commission finds that 
these impositions are in themselves relatively light; to plant manioca, 
prepare it, cook it, and carry it are agricultural or household duties 
to which the women of the country have long been accustomed. But 
the Commission adds that, in certain regions, where there are mili¬ 
tary stations, such, for instance, as Coquilhatville and Leopoldville, 
this system of forced labour in food-stuffs involves the most disas¬ 
trous consequences to the people. You will at once understand why 
I take Leopoldville as an example. There are some 3,000 soldiers of 
the Force Publique there, who must be fed by the natives in the 
neighbourhood. Now, to procure manioca bread in sufficient quanti¬ 
ties to feed the Leopoldville soldiers, villages are called upon to pro¬ 
duce it, some of which are situated forty-five miles away! The result 
is, that the natives who are called upon to furnish the State with 
material which represents the value of one franc and a half, are 
compelled every twelve days to travel ninety miles to fulfil their 
obligations! Assume that to-morrow the people of Huy, Waremme, 
Dinant, Bruges and Antwerp were compelled every twelve days to 
bring 1.50 francs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you will 
understand in what condition these unhappy natives live, who have 
no railways to carry them to the place where the tax has to be paid, 
and back again. But the forced tax in food-stuffs and porterage, and 
the tax in ground nuts, are, when all is said and done, only accesso¬ 
ries to this vast “ financial machine,” which is called the Congo 

* The conveyance of this war material has cost the lives of thousands of 
natives .—Vide the Tilkens revelations in the debate of 1903. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF BEPRE SE N TATI YES. 11 


State. That which is essential, that which gives to the State its reve¬ 
nues, to the Concessionaires of the A.B.I.R. and the Mongalla, and 
to the Domaine de la Gouronne , profits which continue on an increas¬ 
ing scale—is the rubber tax. Here I will not limit myself to a 
resume , and, since you have not all received a copy of the Report 
of the Commission, I shall take the liberty of reading to you what 
it has to sajr on the suffering involved for the natives in the course 
of the frantic exploitation of the rubber forests:— 

“ In the majority of cases, the native must go one or two days’ march every 
fortnight, until he arrives at that part of the forest where the rubber vines can 
be met with in a certain degree of abundance. There the collector passes a 
number of days in a miserable existence. He has to build himself an improvised 
shelter, which cannot, obviously, replace his hut. He has not the food to which 
he is accustomed. He is deprived of his wife, exposed to the inclemencies of the 
weather and the attacks of wild beasts. When once he has collected the rubber, 
he must bring it to the State station, or to that of the Company, and only then 
can he return to his village, where he can sojourn for barely more than two or 
three days, because the next demand is upon him. The result of this, therefore, 
is that, whatever may be his activity in the rubber forests, the native, on account 
of the numerous displacements which he is compelled to undergo, sees the 
majority of his time absorbed in the collection of indiarubber. It is hardly 
necessary to add that this state of affairs is a flagrant violation of the forty 
hours law.” 

Well, I ask those who used to reply to me that taxation in kind on 
the Congo was a light imposition, what they have to say in answer to 
this official admission of the Commission of Inquiry. Remember that 
these unfortunate natives are compelled every fortnight to spend eight 
or twelve days in the forest, exposed to the attacks of wild beasts, 
compelled often to work in swampy ground, waist deep in water, sub¬ 
jected to the supervision of soldiers of the Force Publique, many of 
whom are heartless wretches, who, in the words of the Commission, 
“kill without pity all those who resist,”* and you wfill understand 
h-ow absurd it was to profess that this system is analogous to the obli¬ 
gations of the Communes in Belgium to keep the roads clear, and to 
the taxation which our own citizens are called upon to bear. Here 
again, gentlemen, I refer you to the Report of the Commission. You 
will see what are the means employed to exercise this coercion; the 
chicotte , the hippopotamus whip, which leaves bloody weals on the 
bodies of those upon whom it is used; servile labours imposed upon 
the chiefs; the seizing of hostages, which was recommended in 1897, 
in an official circular by Baron Wahis,f the actual Governor of the 
Congo State, and finally, what is more terrible than all, the black 
soldiers of the Force Publique, whose intervention is indispensable 
to the working of the system. Here is what the Commission has to 
say on the subject of these black soldiers:— 

“ According to the witnesses, these auxiliaries, especially those who are sta¬ 
tioned in the villages, abuse the authority placed in them, making themselves 
into despots, claiming the women, and food, not only for themselves, but for the 
band of parasites and scallywags which the love of rapine associates with them, 
and with whom they surround themselves as by a veritable bodyguard; they 
kill, without pity, all those who attempt to resist their exigencies and whims.” 


* And all those who cannot bring in their quota of rubber from forests which 
are being rapidly depleted of that article. 

f And authorised many times since, in circular after circular, by the highest 
officials of the State, from the Governor-General downwards. 



12 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


This is what was called in the debate of last year the system of 
“ forest guards,” to be compared with the peaceful tax-gathering 
officials of our own country! And when the natives rise against the 
soldiers, when they reply ito violence by violence, what the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry calls punitive expeditions are undertaken, and here 
again, for your edification, I am compelled to quote— 

“ The order given to a Commandant of a detachment is generally drawn up 

in the following manner: ‘ N- is instructed to punish such and such a 

village.’ The Commission is aware of several expeditions of this type. The 
consequences are often very murderous, and one cannot he surprised if, in the 
course of these delicate operations, whose object it is to seize hostages * * * § and 
intimidate the natives,, constant watch cannot be exercised over the sanguinary 
instincts of the soldiers. When orders to punish are given by superior authority, 
it is difficult to prevent the expedition from degenerating into massacres, accom¬ 
panied by pillage and barbarism. Military action, thus understood, always 
exceeds its object. The punishment, being in flagrant disproportion with the 
fault, it confounds in the same punishment the innocent and the guilty.” 

Gentlemen, I ask you all, because, as I said when I began my speech, 
this is not a party question, but a question of humanity, is there in 
this House, is there in Belgium, a single man who dares to defend the 
system of hostages,! sentries, punitive expeditions, and who can say 
that it is right, that it is just, that it is necessary, when one burns a 
village, when one massacres its inhabitants, to kill the innocent as 
well as the guilty, leaving God to recognise his own? (Applause on 
the extreme left.) 

I shall be told that these facts inspire us all with the same horror, 
only that the Congo State is not in the least responsible for them, that 
it has always punished those who committed them, that it has pub¬ 
lished innumerable circulars, in which it instructs its agents to con¬ 
duct themselves with humanity.t To that, gentlemen, I reply that 
the Congo State is responsible, firstly, because it has tolerated these 
things: secondly, because it has encouraged them; thirdly, because 
it profits by them. I say first that it has tolerated these facts, and 
the Commissioners admit it, because the Report says that the conclu¬ 
sions arrived at were due less to the testimony of natives, or even of 
missionary evidence, as by the judgments and circulars and the 
officials’ reports, which they demanded should be shown them. 
Thus, all that has been done has been to admit officially a state of affairs 
which everyone knew beforehand. § And when I am told that the 
authors of the Congo atrocities were prosecuted before the Courts, I 


* The hostages thus seized—the practice is, of course, universal on the Congo— 
are generally women and children. To every factory in the A.B.I.R. territory 
is attached a hostage house, and we know from the revelations in the Tilkens, 
Caudron, and other cases, that the practice is similar in connection with the 
stations managed by the direct representatives of the Congo State. During the 
last two or three years, the same practice has been introduced in the French 
Congo, following the adoption of the Congo system by the French in that 
dependency; witness the shocking disclosures of the De Brazza mission, and 
in particular M. Challaye’s book, “ Le Congo Franqais,” Paris, February, 1906. 
Innumerable testimony with regard to this practice has been published by the 
Congo Reform Association, and may also be found in M. Pierre Mille’s book, 
“ Le Congo Leopoldien.” 

t The Report of the Commission of Inquiry explicitly states that even “ dis¬ 
tinguished magistrates ” on the Congo approve of the system of taking women 
as hostages for rubber or other demands. 

t It has also issued, but not published, innumerable circulars and letters, 
requesting its agents to increase the rubber output. 

§ See, further on, the speech of M. Coifs, and the annotations thereto. 







CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 13 

take up once again the Report of the Commission, and with it other 
reports which were communicated previously to the Sovereign King. 

On the 15th July, 1900, for instance, the Secretaries of the Congo 
State reported to the Sovereign King that the “ judicial statistics 
testify to the vigilance with which the Judiciary investigates abuses, 
and endeavours to prevent any crime from being punished.* * * § 

Now, let us see what the Commission says:— 

“Abuses committed in the course of the exercise of coercion were 
very seldom referred to the Judiciary.” 

In 1900, again, the Secretaries of the Congo State reported to the 
Sovereign King:— 

“ The Government does not even hesitate to say that, in the re¬ 
pression of acts of ill-treatment, an excess of severity responds more 
with its views than does an excess of indulgence.” 

One could not improve upon this. Let us now see the Report of 
the Commission:— 

“ The Commission has found that very often prosecutions, begun 
by the Assistant Public Prosecutors against white men, accused of 
having ill-treated natives, have not been followed up, owing to ad¬ 
ministrative decision.” 

Owing to administrative decision! Seldom have ill deeds, com¬ 
mitted in the course of the exercise of coercion, been prosecuted, and 
prosecutions begun by magistrates who have had the consciousness of 
their duty, have been stopped, and yet it is actually urged that the 
Congo State was inclined rather to excess of severity than to excess 
of indulgence, f 

I said in the second place that the Congo State had not only toler¬ 
ated these abuses, but had encouraged them, and I referred a moment 
ago to the circular of General Wahis, instructing his subordinates to 
take hostages. I proved last year that the Congo State gave bonuses 
to its agents on rubber and ivory, on a scale which ensured the larger 
bonus to the official whose ivory and rubber had cost the least to the 
State to acquire. J 

I do not wish to go back upon facts which were at first denied, 
which had last year to be admitted, and whose existence the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry recognises. The Report adds, it is true, that 
these bonuses have since been suppressed, but we know that they have 
been replaced by pensions. Now, the officials have no right to these 
pensions. § In order to obtain them they must have rendered services 

* But the Secretaries of the Congo State have taken precious good care never 
to publish the verdicts rendered by the Judiciary. The only one which has 
ever seen the light was published first by myself, e. g., the Caudron case (see 
also Africa, No. 9, 1904). 

t Be it noted that all King Leopold’s officials of the Central Staff in Brussels, 
who framed these Reports for their Royal master, reports now admitted to 
have been so flagrantly untrue, have been retained in their positions, and even 
appointed to the Commission for Reforms! 

$ Translated and reproduced in the West African Mail. 

§ What M. Vandervelde means is that their contracts with the State do uot 
specifically contain any condition with regard to pensions, the matter of pen¬ 
sion or no pension is left entirely to the officials of the Central Bureau in 
Brussels; in other words, the King, who controls the whole machine. An 
oflicial who obtains much rubber gets his pension; an official who fails does 
not. That is how the system works in practice. 



14 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 

to the Congo State, and it is known what is the primary service 
demanded of them—obtaining rubber and ivory. 

But what is graver even than the bonus granted for the collection 
of ivory and rubber, is the fact that the State, which had suppressed 
the slave trade in its territory, has not hesitated to re-establish it in 
order to obtain soldiers for the Force Publique. Here, in this re¬ 
spect, is the text of a letter, signed by M. Van Eetvelde, Secretary of 
the Congo State, which was addressed a few years ago to several 
subordinate officers on their way out to the Congo:— 

“ The Congo State will allot for each recruit a bonus settled as follows: 
90 frs. for every man, healthy and vigorous, and judged fit for military 
service, whose height exceeds 1 metre 55 centimetres; 65 frs. for every 
youth whose stature is at least 1 metre 35 centimetres; 15 frs. per male 
child. The male children must he at least 1 metre 20 centimetres in 
height, and must be sufficiently strong to be able to support the fatigues 
of the road. For every married man the bonus will be increased to 130 
frs. The bonus will only be due for such men as have been handed over 
to the headquarters of the various districts.” 

Another system consisted in giving to the officer a fixed bonus, and 
then a proportionate bonus, which increased with the low cost entailed 
in purchasing the soldier. Now, in the early days the natives had 
some repugnance to entering the Force Publique, so that, in order to 
secure these recruits, the Officials ordered the chiefs to hand over 
their slaves. The Officials received them either as a present or 
bought them, and brought them, often enough in chains, to the sta¬ 
tions of the State. I must add, however, that for some time past it 
has not been necessary to have recourse to such proceedings; the 
natives have quickly understood that it was better to be a member of 
the Force Publique than to be subjected to the oppression of the Force 
Publique. In the report of Consul Casement, he notes a very sug¬ 
gestive statement made to him by a soldier, whom he asked if his 
life was agreeable to him: “ I prefer to be with the hunters rather 
than with the hunted ” (laughter in various parts of the house). 

I have, therefore, the right to say that these abominations have 
been committed in the Congo, have been tolerated and encouraged 
by the Congo State, and I add that that State is responsible for these 
crimes, because it has profited by them. The beneficiaries of this 
system, whose only equivalent is to be found in the history of the old 
Spanish Colonies, is, in the first place, the State itself; in the second 
place, the Concessionnaire Companies of the State, in which the State 
holds half the shares; and, finally, the Domaine de la Couronne* 

First of all the State itself, and awhile ago, when I recognised 
the great things accomplished in the Congo in the last twenty years, 
I could not bring myself to forget that the revenue necessary to 
accomplish them has been obtained from the exploitation of the 
Domaine Prive , which has caused so much suffering, and engendered 
so much misery. But, apart from the profits realised by the Colony 
to satisfy the needs of the Colony, there are other profits, which have 
been acquired by individuals; others, again, which have been em¬ 
ployed for objects which have nothing whatever in common with the 
development of the Congo. As regards, first of all, the profits of 


* That is to say, the King personally. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 15 

individuals, it is well, gentlemen, that it should be known what are 
the profits drawn by certain parties from the regime which I have 
just described. 

I will take two Concessionnaire Societies, the most typical, those 
which have the most sinister reputation: the Societe Anversoise du 
Commerce au Congo, and the A.B.I.R. In the one, as in the other, 
the Congo State holds half the shares. The first-named Company, 
from 1898 to 1903, has paid an average annual dividend of 425 francs 
to its shareholders on every 500-franc share. That is the Society 
presided over by our ex-colleague, M. De Browne de Tiege, whom 4 
regret not to see any longer in his seat (laughter on the extreme left). 

M. A. Daens :—Most unfortunate! 

M. Vandervelde: —I might have asked him, had he been here, if 
he were still prepared to maintain, as he did two years ago, that the 
charges brought against him were calumnious. Since then, indeed, 
the State has, under the pressure of public opinion, suspended for 
fifteen years the exercise of the concession of this Company.* 

Let us now deal with the A.B.I.R. We find that this Company 
was created in 1892, with a capital of 1,000,000 francs, of which only 
232,000 francs were paid up. What has become of these shares, of 
so small a value? In 1898 each share brought in 1,100 francs in 
dividends, and was worth 14,600 francs. In 1899 each share brought 
in 1,225 francs in dividends, and was worth 17,950 francs. In 1900 
each share brought in 2,100 francs, and was worth 25,250 francs. In 
1901 each share brought in 900 francs, and was worth 14,550 francs. 
In 1902 each share brought in 850 francs, and was worth 13,400 
francs. In 1903 each share brought in 1,200 francs, and was worth 
15,800 francs. 

If you now wish to know what are the proceedings employed in 
order to secure such profits, you have only to turn to the Report of 
the Commission of Inquiry:— 

“ It was hardly denied that in the various Posts of the A.B.I.R. which were 
visited, the imprisonment of women hostages, the subjugation of the chiefs to 
servile labour, the humiliations forced upon them, the chicotte given to default¬ 
ers, and the brutalities of the soldiers employed in getting the prisoners, was 
the rule habitually followed.” 

M. Caeluwaert :—It is scandalous! 

M. Vandervelde: —Add to this, punitive expeditions, burning of 
villages, the massacre of natives, hands cut off by the sentinels, 
either from dead bodies, or from people yet alive, and you know the 
sources of the riches of the shareholders and administrators of the 

A.B.I.R.! 

M. A. Daens :—It is revolting! 

M. Vandervelde :—No doubt these gentlemen would be personally 
incapable of inflicting such tortures, but they knew what was taking 
place; they were not ignorant of the proceedings adopted to fill 
their coffers, and they find that the money they have thus obtained 
has no scent, not even the scent of blood (applause on the extreme 
left). The example, moreover, came from on high, for, alongside 

* Which means nothing more than that it has substituted its own regular 
troops for the irregulars of the Company, and instead of reaping half the 
profits, probably now reaps a larger proportion still. It is to be noted that 
the shares of this Company are still quoted on the Antwerp Stock Exchange, 
and each £20 share is worth to-day about £280. 




16 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPBESENTATIVES. 

the territories exploited by this Concession we have the astonishing 
creation which calls itself the Domaine de la Couronne. A few years 
ago, M. Beernaert protested with indignation, which then had its 
raison d'etre , because we accused the King of the Belgians of having 
mixed himself up with speculative enterprises. It was the time when 
Jerome Becker could still write in his book on ‘‘African Life,” in 
reporting a visit which he made to Mirambo, the despot of Uniam- 
wesi: “ I astonished him a great deal when I told him that, with us, 
kings are not merchants.” If a new edition of “African Life ” 
were ever published, perhaps it would be a good thing to place a foot¬ 
note at the bottom of that page (laughter from many Socialist 
benches). 

M. Terwagne:— Jerome Becker might have put that foot-note 
himself, for he was a very honest man. 

M. Vandervelde : — I must assume, gentlemen, that you know what 
is the Domaine de la Couronne. If you do not know, I suggest you 
reading the very complete volume which has just been published by 
M. Cattier, Professor of Colonial Jurisprudence at the Free Univer¬ 
sity of Brussels. The Domaine de la Couronne is composed, first 
of all, of a territory ten times the size of Belgium, situate in the 
rubber region of the Congo, and containing the finest rubber vines 
in the territory; in the second place, of six mines, which have not 
yet been decided upon, but which the Soverign reserves for himself 
to select, if the day comes when precious metal is found in the Congo; 
finally, a considerable amount of real estate in Brussels and Ostend, 
and on the Riviera. How has this domain been constituted? We 
do not know. How has it been exploited during the last few years? 
We do not know either, for no European, save the agents of the 
State, had entered it before 1903.* It was only in that year that the 
missionary Scrivener and Consul Casement made the terrible revela¬ 
tions of what was going on in the domain by Leopold II. I must add, 
in all loyalty, that the Report of the Commission admits the gravity 
of these abuses, but adds that since then the situation has largely 
improved, f 

It is none the less true that, thanks to exactions without num¬ 
ber, the Domaine de la Couronne has brought in considerable 
sums to its royal founder. Professor Cattier, not having official 
documents at his disposal to determine these sums, has been com¬ 
pelled to limit himself to estimates, but by a system of double 
check, by taking into consideration, on the one hand, the extent 
of the Domaine Prive , of which the production in rubber is known, 
and the extent of the Domaine de la Couronne; by taking into 
account, on the other hand, the quantity of rubber exported from 
the Congo, and the proportion of 28 per cent, which the Domaine 

* Sir Edward Grey recently announced in the House of Commons that the 
district will be visited shortly by British Vice-Consuls. 

t The Commission did not visit any of the territory of the Domaine de la 
Couronne . It merely called at Bolobo, a spot on the river outside the Domaine, 
which was the starting point of Scrivener’s investigating travels. In other 
words, with the exception of Scrivener’s 150 miles’ tramp in the small section 
of the West portion of the Domaine de la Couronne (for Casement did not enter 
the region), no white man, save specially-appointed agents of King Leopold II., 
has entered the sacred precincts of this royal rubber preserve since it was 
constituted by secret decree in 1896. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 17 

de la Couronne represents to the whole rubber region, M. Cattier 
concludes that since 1896, that is to say, since its foundation, the 
Domaine de la Couronne has brought in some 70,000,000 francs 
profit to its founder. I repeat that these are merely estimates; it 
would be desirable that they should be confirmed. It would be 
desirable that the Government should furnish us with details on 
this subject; but in any case we can judge of the tree by its fruits, 
from the purchases which have been made by the Domaine de la 
Couronne in Belgium and elsewhere. Now, in this respect, the list 
given by M. Cattier in his book is very instructive. He notes, in 
effect, that the Domaine de la Couronne has bought, in the neigh¬ 
bourhood of Brussels, real estate whose value, assuming, he says, 
that the Acts of Sale are honest, amounts to 16,385,000 francs, and 
in the neighbourhood of Ostend of real estate of which the total 
value is 1,903,000 francs. Altogether, therefore, in these two 
arrondissements —he was not able to continue the enquiry through¬ 
out the rest of the country—a total of 18,289,000 francs. I must 
add that it seems very probable that the enumeration of Professor 
Cattier is incomplete. It is said, and I think w T ith truth, that 
alongside the real estate inscribed in the name of the Domaine 
de la Couronne , there is a large amount of real estate, notably in 
the environs of the Porte de Namur , on the spot occupied by 
the future Walhalla, and, again, in the houses between the Boulevard 
du Regent and Pepiniere Street, inscribed in the name of Baron 
Goffinet, Steward of the Civil List, which has been bought with 
money from the Domaine de la Couronne . In addition to these, 
there are properties on the Riviera, the “ family estate,” which the 
King possesses on the Riviera, and the Domaine of Cap Ferrat, 
which were first inscribed in the name of the Domaine de la 
Couronne , but, the French Government having declared that this 
moral personality w T as unknown in France, it was necessary to have 
recourse to the intervention of an Hon. Professor of our Faculty 
of Medicine, who was kind enough to offer to lend his name to 
the Sovereign King (laughter at the extreme left). I said lend 
his name; 1 did not say lend his assistance (loud laughter on the 
extreme left). 

All this, gentlemen, real estate of the Crown, real estate in the 
name of the Steward of the Civil List, and real estate on the Riviera, 
represents some 35,000,000 francs. We have now to ask ourselves 
w T hat has been done with the revenues from this real estate, and 
what is the object aimed at in the creation of the Domaine de la 
Couronne? I shall keep myself, gentlemen, from saying that the 
object pursued was a personal object. I will not lower the debate 
by saying that the dominating thought of the Sovereign was to 
enrich himself personally when he constituted the Domaine de la 
Couronne. I am sure, on the contrary, that he was pursuing other 
ends, that he was associating Belgium with his dreams of grandeur, 
that he is proposing to make Belgium profit some day from the 
riches which he is accumulating. But it is none the less true, and 
it will be easy to establish the fact, that the effect of the Domaine 
de la Couronne upon our public life has been most deplorable. 

First of all, M. Cattier notes in his book, that along with the 
sumptuous works which have been executed with the money of the 
S. Doc. 139, 59-2-2 


18 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Domaine, along with Colonial Institutions like the Tervueren Mu¬ 
seum, other sums have been expended in paying journalists or news¬ 
papers. M. Cattier has been reproached with having exposed the 
existence of this reptile fund, without giving the names of the papers 
profiting by it. But you must admit that, in such matters, proof is 
always difficult. An accident must take place for truth to come out; 
some fortuitous circumstance must arise, which shall establish as a cer¬ 
tainty what was a long time suspected or divined. A few years ago, 
you may remember, perhaps, that my hon. friend, L. Bertrand, was 
able to establish a fact of this kind in the case of a newspaper, which 
was paid by the gambling-houses of Spa and Ostend. We may have 
asked ourselves a few days ago if a similar exposure was possible in 
the actual case before us. Certainly there were suspicious rumours. 
It was observed on many occasions that several newspapers adopted 
on specific matters an attitude diametrically opposed to those of the 
Parliamentary party they were supposed to represent. But, in order 
to change these suspicions into certainties, it was necessary, as I have 
said, for a fortuitous occasion to arise. Such a one has arisen, and 
here, gentlemen, you will allow me to read what I have to say on 
this point, not desiring in any way to improvise upon the facts:— 

“ Upon his return from Africa, Commandant Lemaire,* having 
reasons to suspect the management of the Petit Bleu , demanded 
explanations. It was finally admitted that the Petit Bleu was 
subsidised by the Congo State, and had drawn 9,000 francs, or 500 
francs per month. Commandant Lemaire, irritated by this incor¬ 
rect proceeding, which had been committed in his absence, compelled 
the restitution to the Congo State of the sums which it had paid to 
the Petit Bleu. The Congo State having refused to accept them, the 
sum was distributed between nine charitable institutions.” 

These are the facts, and now one will be in a better position to 
understand, perhaps, the violence and the continuity of the attacks 
which the journal I have cited has indulged in against those which it 
unjustly accused of being in the pay of Liverpool merchants. Per¬ 
haps, to-day, one may be permitted to speak of the traders in con¬ 
sciences of the Congo State (applause on the Socialist seats).f 
What, however, one must specially note is not the moral position 
which this paper will henceforth hold in the eyes of public opinion, 
it is the attitude of a Government which resorts to such means, 
because, under such circumstances, I feel more incensed against the 
corrupters than I do against the corrupted (applause on the Socialist 
benches). 

M. A. Daens : — It is a system. 

M. Vandervelde : — I may add that it is not only the Congo State 
which is responsible for proceedings which have been adopted in 
order to react upon public opinion; the Belgian Government has also 
some responsibility in this, because it has lent the Congo State its 
officials, not only to direct the system of exploitation which goes on 

* Commandant Lemaire is one of the few officials of the Congo State who is 
above reproach. He has never accepted a farthing’s commission from the 
State. His work has, in the main, been concerned with exploration pure and 
simple. 

f The Petit Bleu , which has sought to cover Congo reformers with some of the 
mud adhering to its own unclean fingers, did not apparently attach a particu¬ 
larly high price to the value of its services ! 






CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 19 

in the Qongo, but also to direct the Press Bureau at home, where 
semi-official communiques are fabricated, and special pleadings in 
favour of the Congo State are drawn up. 

And this, gentlemen, demands a word of explanation, in view of 
the extraordinary reply made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
to the question I asked him last week. I had asked the Minister if it 
were true that a Belgian Vice-Consul, paid by the Belgian Govern¬ 
ment, was at the head of the Press Bureau of the Congo. The 
Minister replied in a long note, in which he referred to a number of 
things to which I had not even alluded. 

M. Terwagne:— Naturally, that is his habit. 

M. Vandervelde:— From this note, it seems that the officials of the 
Department of Foreign Affairs, who had formerly —note this word 
carefully, gentlemen—served the Congo State, had not received in 
the course of this service any payment from the Belgian Treasury, 
but the note added:— 

“We have sent two Vice-Consuls on a voyage of exploration to the West 
African Colonies. Now, the climate of the coast of Guinea has had a deplor¬ 
able effect upon the Consul at the head of this exploration. After having nearly 
succumbed to fever in Africa he came home very ill. He asked for a holiday, 
during which he drew his pay conformably with precedent. This intelligent 
and very worthy agent will shortly be able to take up once more a foreign post/’ 

Gentlemen, those amongst you who have read carefully the reply 
of the Minister to my question must have come to the conclusion that 
M. Cattier had made a mistake; that not only was there no Press 
Bureau, but that no Belgian official, except an agent on leave, was 
paid at the same time by the Congo State and b}^ Belgium. Unfor¬ 
tunately, what the Minister forgot to say, and what, however, was 
essential, is that the sick, or rather convalescent, Vice-Consul was 
improving his health in a Sanatorium, situate No. 41, Pepiniere 
Street, precisely in the offices of the Press Bureau of the Congo State! 
(Loud applause on the extreme left.) I have the right to say that 
the responsibility of the present Government is mixed up in this 
affair of the Press Bureau, because, amongst those who direct this 
Bureau to-day is to be found the official of the Foreign Office to 
whom I have made allusion, and yesterday, at the head of this same 
Bureau, was to be found a judge, a magistrate of the Tribunal of 
First Instance, who, perhaps, would have condemned us for calumny 
if, outside this House, we had denounced the facts which I have 
exposed (loud applause on the extreme left). 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—In what you have 
just said I detect a possible insinuation (protests from the extreme 
left). 

M. Horlait :—There is only truth in what he has said. 

M. Van den Heuvel:— It is desirable that M. Vandervelde should 
be more precise. Does he mean to imply that the judge to whom he 
has alluded, has or has not participated in distributing funds to the 
Press, and in particular to the newspaper which he has just named? 
(Uproar on the left.) 

M. Vandervelde:— The Minister asks me if I know whether the 
judge in question distributed to the paper named the funds which 
the latter has received. I said that this judge, receiving a salary 
from the Department of Justice, w T as at the head of the Press Bureau 
of the Congo State. I said nothing more, and it was not an insinua¬ 
tion (hear, hear). 


20 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Horlait :—It was sufficient. 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice):—You are trying to get 
out of it. 

M. Caeluwaert:—Y ou dare not deny what M. Vanderveide has 
said. I challenge you to do so! 

M. Lorand:—I t is inadmissible that a Belgian magistrate should 
be at the head of a Bureau for the corruption of the Press. Is the 
fact true ? If it is, it constitutes a scandal. 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—M. Vanderveide can 
not maintain his position, all the more so as M. Lorand speaks of a 
Bureau for the corruption of the Press. Does he maintain that there 
is a judge at the head of a work of corruption? (Outcry on the 
extreme left.) 

M. Vandervelde :—You know as well as I do that this judge is now- 
no longer at the head of the Press Bureau. 

M. De Favereau (Minister for Foreign Affairs) :—I ask you the 
same question as to the Vice-Consul to whom you have alluded 
(renewed outcry on the extreme left). 

M. Caeluwaert:—Y ou are about to contradict yourself. 

M. Vandervelde:—I s the Minister going to assert once again that 
these facts took place “ formerly ” ? 

M. Huysmans:—D o you accuse a judge of having distributed 
money to the Press? 

M. Anseele:—Y ou are once again supporting the Ministry. 

M. Pepin :—It is ridiculous. 

M. Vandervelde:—I t is my custom to say precisely what I wish to 
say, and all questions, however cleverly framed, will not make me 
add one word to what I have just said (applause on the extreme 
left). I have noted the existence of the Press Bureau paid by the 
funds of the Domaine de la Gouronne. I have stated that, at a given 
moment, a Belgian magistrate was at the head of that Press Bureau. 

M. Lorand :—Is this true ? That is the question. 

M. Vandervelde:—I have stated finally that a newspaper of this 
capital had received money. I have not said anything else, and you 
will not make me say anything else. I add that this is quite sufficient 
(renewed applause on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand:—A gain I ask—Is this true? I repeat that, if it is 
true, it is enough, and it constitutes an intolerable scandal. 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—I declare that you 
are equivocating, and that, notwithstanding my questions, you do not 
specify anything (protests from the extreme left). 

M. Caeluwaert :—This is too much. 

M. Terwagne :—You are trying to bring up a side issue, M. Van 
den Heuvel. 

M. Pepin (addressing the Minister for Justice) :—You are not in 
command of the House. It is M. Vandervelde who is speaking 
(uproar, the Speaker calls to order). 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—When an accusation 
is brought, it should be made categorically (further uproar). 

M. Vandervelde :—But, gentlemen, it seems to me that it would be 
much simpler for you to put yourselves down to speak and reply to 
me. Moreover, wdiatever may be the specific importance of * the 
debate relating to the Press, I think that the existence of the 
Domaine de la Gouronne has consequences of a more general char- 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. 21 

acter, and a much more deplorable character for our country than 
this. 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—I note with regret 
that you are getting out of your position, and are passing to another 
question (violent protests from the Socialist seats, and cries from 
the extreme left: “ It is you who are getting out of it ”). 

M. Bertrand: —You are appropriating the money of this country 
to allow someone else to carry out a disgraceful job. 

M. Vandervelde: —The revenues of the Domaine de la Couronne 
have been used in our country towards the resurrection of a personal 
power, whose dominating and corrupting influence interferes with 
the mechanism of our Parliamentary institutions (applause on the 
Socialist benches). We shall be told, no doubt, that the money of 
the Domaine de la Couronne is profitable to Belgium; that the King 
has only in view the interests of Belgium; that the property which 
he acquires will some day return to Belgium; I reply that, alongside 
the presents which are given us, sacrifices are imposed upon us. 
Boast, for instance, is made of the present of 5,000,000 francs, which 
served to construct the triumphal arch, the moneys for which the 
House refused to vote.* We are told that, at the death of the King, 
other advantages will be granted us, and there is an attempt to 
forget that between the Sovereign of the Congo State and the Bel¬ 
gian Government, all that exists is a system of tit for tat. 

“ I will pay your arch on condition that you give me the tunnel, costing 
3,000,000 francs, which connects my Palace at Laeken with the main railway 
line.”f 

“ I will give you some millions at my death, on condition that you place at 
my disposal, without interest, the 31,000,000 francs which Belgium has ad¬ 
vanced to the Congo State. I will give you later the Domaine de la Couronne, 
on condition that the day upon which you annex the Congo you will take over 
at the same time its Public Debt.” 

The result of all this is that, far from profiting, we are running the 
risk of losing, and that, meantime, the Sovereign of the Congo, who 
is also the King of the Belgians, escapes from Parliamentary con¬ 
trol, can execute such public works as may please him, can spread 
money broadcast, and spend 30,000,000 francs on the improvement of 
his palace at Laeken, saying to himself that, as a last resort, it is 
Belgium which will have to pay (applause on the Socialist benches). 

It is essential, gentlemen, that we should see quite clearly, as far 
as is possible into the finances of the Congo State. I say as far as 
is possible, because, owing to the negligence of the Belgian Govern¬ 
ment, we are very insufficiently informed. Formerly, in exchange 
for the loan of 31,000,000 francs, which Belgium made to the Congo 
State, Belgium had the right to claim information of the financial 
situation. On this head we received an account of the receipts and 
expenditure of the Congo State in 1890, 1891, 1892 and 1893. From 
that date, nothing! And in 1900, notwithstanding the opposition of 
men like Messieurs Beernaert and De Lantsheere, the Houses decided 


* This refers to the arch, recently constructed, commemorating Belgian 
Independence. 

f This refers to an underground tunnel, connecting the Palace with the main 
railway, demanded by the King, and agreed to by the Ministry. The cost of 
the same was estimated at £120,000. See, further on, M. Bertrand’s remarks 
on this subject. 





22 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 

that the Congo State would no longer be called upon to furnish us 
with any information, and that its option to contract loans would be 
henceforth unlimited. What have been the results of this financial 
emancipation ? Mr. Cattier has endeavoured to calculate them in his 
book. He has taken the interest on loans paid each year by the State, 
and by carefully worked-out calculations he has capitalised them. 
Here are the results of his calculations. The total amount of the 
debt was— 


In 1898 


2, 283, 000 

francs. 

“ 1899 


12, 533, 000 

ii 

“ 1900 

_ 

12, 783, 000 

ii 

“ 1901 


15, 672, 000 

a 

“ 1902 

_ 

41,973,000 

a 

“ 1903 

_ 

35, 939, 000 

ii 

“ 1904 

_ 

55,939, 000 

ii 1 

“ 1905 

— 

80, 631, 000 

ii 


And to this figure of 80,000,000 francs must be added the 81,000,000 
lent by Belgium, and the net product of the loan on the lottery sys¬ 
tem—net product which M. Cattier estimates at 50 millions, which 
makes, independently of the sum lent by Belgium, an approximate 
total of 130 millions, which represents the debt of the Congo State 
to-day, a debt which, in the case of annexation, will have to be taken 
over bv Belgium. 

M. Bertrand : — Here is the danger ! 

M. Vandervelde:— Was I right in saying just now that the sump¬ 
tuary works carried out at Laeken, in Brussels, or in Ostend, are be¬ 
ing constructed with the money of the Belgian taxpayer? No doubt, 
gentlemen, I shall be told that the figures which I have indicated are 
merely estimates. I recognise it, but let us then be given specific 
figures. Let us be reassured as to the future. Let us have light upon 
a situation which ought to pre-occupy us, because, when all is said 
and done, we are incurring, all of us, a heavy responsibility in allow¬ 
ing, every day, a state of affairs to be aggravated, a state of affairs 
the consequences of which the Belgian people will ultimately be called 
upon to bear. 

What is particularly deplorable in this state of affairs is, that it 
seems the 130 millions borrowed by the Congo State have not been 
utilised in the development of the Colony. Indeed, so far as any 
value can be attached to the financial estimates published each year 
by the Congo State, the total deficit of the Congo State has amounted 
to 27 million francs only. Now, 130 million francs have been bor¬ 
rowed. If we subtract the 27 million francs from the 130 million 
francs, there remain over 103 million francs, which seem to have 
been utilised and expended elsewhere than in the Congo. Gentlemen, 
metropolises have sometimes been known, may still be known, which 
exploit their Colonies, and make use of the profits derived therefrom 
to carry out public works elsewhere than in those Colonies. But 
the Congo State has alone given to the world this strange sight of a 
Colonial Government which borrows money on its Colony, in order to 
undertake speculative enterprises in other Continents and in other 
ways, for instance, in China and in Belgium! I shall not fail, no 
doubt, to be told, “ You are alarmed at this Congo debt, but you for¬ 
get the other side, namely, the portfolio of the Congo State.” 

It is true, gentlemen, that the stock which this portfolio contains 
brings in about the same as, or a little less than, the interest on the 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 23 

public debt. But the majority of this stock consists of shares in 
Congolese Companies; there are the shares of the A.B.I.R., of the 
Anversoise Company, and similar companies. So long as the present 
system continues, all goes well. As long as the present frantic 
exploitation of ivory, copal, and rubber continues, all is well. But 
when the ivory, copal and rubber do not come forward in the same 
quantities, when the present system of oppression of the natives has 
disappeared, things will altogether change. Then will the era of 
deficits commence; then the portfolio will no longer be equivalent 
to the public debt, and we shall experience all the disadvantages of 
a state of affairs from which others will have reaped all the profits 
(applause on the extreme left). This, gentlemen, is the situation 
from a financial point of view, and I do not think there is any one 
amongst you who ought not to be perturbed thereby. The situation, 
I repeat, is all the graver since the temporary prosperity of the Congo 
State depends exclusively upon the system of oppression imposed upon 
the natives. 

Now, gentlemen, this system must disappear; it is condemned to 
disappear. From the moment that its existence is known, it is 
doomed. The only question which you have to consider to-day is 
the direction whence reform is to come. Will it come from the 
Congo State itself, or from the intervention of the Powers, or, finally, 
from Belgian initiative? 

From the Congo State itself! In this respect I am profoundly con¬ 
vinced that the Congo State is powerless to reform itself. The example 
of Russia proves that absolutism cannot reform itself. It is reformed 
or it is ended. (Applause on the extreme left.) 

I am all the more justified in thinking that this is so when even the 
Commissioners of Enquiry, to whose impartiality and good faith, I 
have referred merely propose insignificant measures, mere palliatives. 
They uphold the system of forced labour, and they adopt the thesis de¬ 
fended a few days ago only by M. Rolin* in the Review of the University 
of Brussels, that coercion is indispensable in tropical regions, that forced 
labour is necessary, that slavery is legitimate. 

To this opinion, one can oppose another, which is more authorised 
than that of the Commissioners, than that of M. Rolin. It is the 
opinion of the Colonial .Congress, which held its meetings in Paris 
in 1900, and which voted as follows:— 

“ Seeing that the use of forced labour is undesirable; that it 
causes a decrease in the native population, and that it is at 
the same time a danger for public peace, owing to the discon¬ 
tent which it provokes; 

“ Considering, on the other hand, that it has been demonstrated 
by experience that the measures taken to prevent the abuses 
which the use of forced labour entails, are inefficacious and 
illusory; 

“ Considering, finally, that only free and remunerated labour 
gives serious results, and that there is no Colony in which, 
by sufficient pay, labour is unprocurable; 

“ Resolved— 

“ That the Colonising Powers shall suppress forced labour, 
and replace it by free and paid labour.” 


* See further on, M. Lorand’s speech, and annotation. 



24 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OP KEPRESENTATIVES. 

To M. Rolin, therefore, who professes to believe that forced labour 
is necessary, the Congress of Colonial Sociology, at which he, I think, 
assisted, replies unanimously that forced labour is not necessary. In 
his article in the aforesaid Review, Profesor Rolin attacked me, 
because I said that, in defending this principle, laid down by the 
Congress of Colonial Sociology, I was a radical. The word “ radical,” 
in his mind, means a man who considers that slavery is always intoler¬ 
able, that the taking of hostages is criminal, that punitive expeditions 
are atrocious, and that it is indispensable to stamp out all disguised 
forms of slavery. In this respect, it is true, I am a radical, and I am 
sure that m}^ friend M. Lorand will subscribe to the same sentiments. 

But I return to what I was saying just now, viz., the absolute impos¬ 
sibility of expecting serious reforms from the Congo State, and I find the 
proof of this in the composition, which is at least strange, of the Commis¬ 
sion of Reforms established after the enquiry. This Commission is 
composed of fourteen members. Amongst them there are four before 
whose independence I bow once more. These four are Messieurs. Van 
Maldeghem, Janssens, Nys * and Davignon. 

On the other hand, there are seven w T ho are officials of the Congo 
State, that is to say, of the principal accused party, namely, Messieurs 
de Cuvelier, Droogmans, Capt. Tombeur, Capt. Chenot, Gohr, Arnold, 
and Capt. Liebrechts, who certainly has incurred the largest part of 
responsibility in the organisation of the system of exploitation of the 
natives. I find also on this Commission Colonel Five, who was the 
agent of the King in Persia and China, and M. de Hemptinne, of the 
Kassai f Society, and finally, what is almost unimaginable, M. Mols, J 
Administrator of the A.B.I.R., that is to say, of the Company against 
whom the frightful crimes related in the Report of the Commission 
are brought! 

It is precisely as though one called in a slave-trader to a conference 
to abolish the slave trade! Under these conditions, how is it possible 
to hope that this Commission will bring about serious reforms? I 
notice that none of the men who have done good work on the Congo 
form part of it, and I do not find the name of Dhanis, nor do I find 
the names of Wangermee, Lemaire or Cambier. Neither do I see 
a solitary representative of the Catholic Missions. 

M. Hymans:— It is M. Davignon who represents the Missions! 
(Laughter.) 

M.Vandervelde : —I do not know if M. Davignon is a representative 
of the missionaries, or if he is specially qualified for that represen¬ 
tation, but I must recognise that our colleague is one of the members 
of the Commission who takes the reform of the Congo system 
seriousty. But, if it were desired to bring about such reforms, the 


* Mattre Nys is a jurist, who has consistently defended, on juridical grounds, 
the claims applied by King Leopold to the land, the produce of the soil, and the 
labour of the Congo people, which claims constitute the bed-rock of the Congo 
system, and the enforcement of which claims is the explanation of the abomi¬ 
nations without which that system is incapable of being maintained. See, fur¬ 
ther on, M. Lorand’s comments upon these juridical whitewashings. 

f In which the Congo Government holds fifty per cent, of the shares, and 
whose administration it controls. 

$ M. Mols is on intimate terms with King Leopold. He it is who is interested 
in and practically controls a number of so-called “ French ” Concessionnaire 
Companies, whose exploits in the French Congo have brought that French 
Dependency to its present pass. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 25 

Commission would be powerless to realise them, because from the very 
moment when the system of forced labour was abolished, it would be 
necessanq in order to provide for the deficits of the Budget, to create 
resources which the Congo State would no longer have at its disposal. 
Moreover, there is a fact more eloquent and more conclusive than all the 
others, which shows that there is no intention of doing anything, and 
that nothing has been done, and that is, that during the year which has 
elapsed since the return of the Commission to Belgium nothing has been 
attempted to improve the conditions which prevail on the Congo. 

Three days ago, I received an important document, signed by fifty- 
two Evangelical Missionaries, established in the Congo. Among the 
signatories I find Mr. Grenfell, who was at one time appointed by the 
King, President of the Commission for the Protection of the Natives. 
I ask your permission to read this document, because, better than any 
other, does it give an idea of the actual situation on the Congo. The 
document in question was drawn up at a conference of missionaries 
which met at Kinchassa, Stanley Pool. This resolution is dated 11th 
January, 1906, barely a month ago. This is what it says:— 

[Here M. Vandervelde read out the pathetic appeal to civilisation, 
signed by 52 Missionaries, including Englishmen, Americans, Cana¬ 
dians, Germans, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. It is useless to 
reproduce the document here, as the Congo Reform Association has 
already issued it in a pamphlet, entitled “ Will Civilisation Hearken ? ” 
which has been distributed to all the Foreign Offices of the Powers, 
to the more important British newspapers, and to every member of the 
British House of Commons; and upon which Herr Ludwig Deuss 
has likewise founded a very nobly-worded appeal to the head of the 
Civil Cabinet of His Majesty the German Emperor.] 

Gentlemen, we did not wait to receive this appeal to associate our¬ 
selves with the work of reform undertaken by the Missions. To-day, 
Catholic and Protestant Missionaries are agreed in declaring that the 
events which have taken place in the Congo call for vengeance from 
Heaven. They appeal to your humanity and to the Almighty, and I 
hope you will not be deaf to their request! 

These reforms are essential. The present system must dissapear. 
There remains the question of whether it shall be made to disappear 
by the Foreign Powers, or by the initiative of our country. 

Do not be deceived. International public opinion is more 
irritated against such excesses every day. It is not only the 
English Government which is moved; in America, in Italy, in 
France, protests arise daily. A few days ago we saw in the news¬ 
papers* a demand for a fresh International Conference, which would 
compel Belgium to give a definite answer upon the question of 
annexation, with guarantees for the protection of the natives, and, 
in case of refusal, to bring about, in the Congo, an International 
Condominium. Well, gentlemen, I desire for my country that we 
should not wait for this initiative to be taken by others, in order 
to reform the existing state of affairs in the Congo territory. We 
have therein a more direct interest than others, a moral interest, 
a political interest, a financial interest; a moral interest because 
our good name is at stake; a financial interest because I have shown 
you the ultimate consequences which annexation might one day 


* Le Temps, Paris. 



26 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


bring about; a political interest because I am profoundly convinced 
that many events which have taken place would never have taken 
place if Congolese absolutism had not reacted upon Belgian constitu¬ 
tionalism. 

And I should add that, from the point of view of our international 
relations, we cannot see, without anxiety, disputes arising such as 
those of the Bahr-el-Ghazal, which, it is true, concerns only England 
and the Congo State, but which are, nevertheless, of a kind to place 
us in a difficult position towards the Powers who are the guarantors 
of our independence. 

I shall be told, no doubt, that we are powerless. I reply, if this 
is said, that we have means of action upon the Congo State. In the 
first place, Belgium is a signatory party to the Act of Berlin, and it 
is incontestable that the proceedings of the Congo State are contrary 
to Article 6, referring to the protection of the natives. Secondly, 
the Chambers voted a few years ago the authorisation necessary for 
the King to be at the same time Sovereign of the Congo State. This 
authorisation was not a law, is not an article of the constitution. It 
is an authorisation given by Parliament, and which might be revoked 
or subordinated to specific conditions of reform. Finally, I have 
shown upon several occasions that Belgium lends to the Congo State 
her officers, her diplomatists, her officials. She might at least subor¬ 
dinate a continuation of this to the accomplishment of the reforms 
which are essential. 

We are, therefore, armed. It is not the power to act, but the will 
to act, which the Government lacks, and I must add that I do not 
expect much from it, because the characteristic of its policy during 
the last few years has been complete acquiescence in everything which 
the Sovereign of the Congo State has done. We were first told that 
the personal union * would entail no pecuniary liability for Belgium; 
it entails such, liability. We were told that we should have informa¬ 
tion on the commercial situation of the Congo; that information is 
suppressed. Finally, Parliament was made to vote the law of 1901, 
which withdraws from us the right of even asking for such informa¬ 
tion. Well, gentlemen, what would happen if an event occurred 
which it is permissible to foresee, for we are all mortal,f from one 
day to another; without prior knowledge, without the possibility of 
an inventory, without any precise information upon the financial 
situation of the Congo State, we should be compelled to decide this 
redoubtable problem of annexation. Who amongst you would be 
capable of giving, under these conditions, a conscientious and faithful 
vote? We should know nothing, we should ignore everything, we 
should not have the elements of knowledge, which we claim for the 
most modest problem of local interest. Far more than this, we should 
not even know what would be the system to be applied to our Congo¬ 
lese possession. The Government, it is true, deposited, on the 7th 
August, 1901, a proposed law upon the government of the ultimate 
possessions of Belgium, but we have never heard anything more of 
this proposed law. It has been relegated to the pigeon-holes of the 
House, together with another project, purporting to place the millions 

* That is to say, the fact that King Leopold is at the same time King of the 
Belgians and the Sovereign of the Congo State. 

f That is to say, the death of the King. 






CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 27 

of the Public Savings Bank at the disposal of the exotic enterprises 
of the King. Nevertheless, the Government had recognised at that 
time that it was indispensable that the Chamber should undertake 
to discuss the possibility of eventually taking over the Congo. The 
following is the view held by the Government, and the preamble of 
this Bill:— 

“ We are agreed in recognising that it is highly to be desired that there 
should be no uncertainty in regard to the system to be applied on the Congo 
when it becomes a Belgian Colony. The circumstances under which the ques¬ 
tion of annexation will come up again cannot be foreseen at the present time, 
but, whatever may be the decision which the Chambers will have to take, it 
will be greatly facilitated if, when that time comes, agreement has been arrived 
at as to the method of government to be applied to that Colony.” 

The urgency of this discussion was therefor recognised. Never - 
the less, the Bill has been treated in the same way as the proposed 
work of reform. It has never been sat on in Committee. 

M. Huysmans : — And this is the first thing which Parliament must 
do—study and discuss this Bill. 

M. Vandervelde:— After five years we are, therefore, in precisely 
the same position as we were in 1901. We do not yet know if, when 
annexation might be voted by the House, the Royal absolutism Avould 
be maintained, or whether the Congolese institutions would be given 
representative control,* and I would add that it is important that 
we should know, not only the method of administration to be applied 
to a future Belgian Colony, but also the consequences which might 
result from annexation, from the point of view of the finances of 
Belgium. I think, gentlemen, that this is a question which ought to 
be studied by us from an objective point of view, apart from the 
opinion which we may have as to the advantages or the inconveniences 
of annexation. That is why I should desire that, as soon as possible, 
the House appoint a Commission, instructed to make an enquiry into 
the financial consequences which might accrue to Belgium from the 
ultimate annexation of the Congo, and the accomplishment of the 
necessary reforms to insure the preservation of the native peoples, 
and the improvement of their moral and material conditions of ex¬ 
istence. 

Such, gentlemen, are the conclusions which I suggest to the House. 
They will, perhaps, appear mild in regard to the abuses which we 
have denounced, but I think that, in the actual state of affairs, they 
are the only conclusions which have any chance of securing a major¬ 
ity. If the proposals which I have just sketched out met with 
support on other benches than our own, I would amplify it, or I 
would leave it to others to do so. 

It must be well understood, and I say this to avoid any equivoca¬ 
tion, that, in my opinion, such a decision does not prejudge in any 
way annexation, or the refusal to annex. 

In order that such a discussion might be opened under normal 
conditions, we must, first of all, be informed as to the consequences 
resulting to Belgium from taking over the Congo. But there is one 
thing here which I must say, and I now speak in my personal name, 
without involving the Party to which I have the honour to belong: 
viz., that of all the solutions which might be proposed—whether 
it be the abandonment of the Congo or its annexation by Belgium— 


* Would be controlled, that is, by the Belgian Parliament. 




28 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES. 


there is not one, whatever disadvantages it may have, which I do not 
consider as being absolutely preferable to the maintenance of the 
actual system existing in the Congo, which must result in the partial 
extermination of the natives (applause on the extreme left). 

It is in this spirit—and you will see that it is a spirit of concili¬ 
ation—that I have wished to close my interpellation. I venture to 
hope that, in replying to me, side issues will not be invoked, and 
that I shall be no longer told that, in denouncing abuses, I am lack¬ 
ing in patriotism. I assert, on the contrary, that when abuses take 
place, true patriotism lies, not in dissimulating them, but in protest¬ 
ing against them, and I hope the whole House will agree with this. 

This is the sixth time that we are interpellating on this ques¬ 
tion. But it comes before us to-day under new conditions. When 
we spoke in the past you might not have believed us; you might 
have suspected our intentions. You had the right to ignore what 
was not revealed in official documents; but to-day you know, you 
ought to know, you can no longer ignore, you can no longer remain 
deaf to the complaints and the protests which arise from all sides— 
and I address myself to you, members of the Clerical Party. I ask 
you to forget the links which bind you to the Government, and to 
cling, above all, to that which your conscience dictates to you. 
In presence of facts denounced by all ministers of Christianity, 
Protestant and Catholic, you have no right to remain impassive, 
and to wash your hands of the blood which has been shed, because 
if you were to do so, if you were to refuse justice to the natives, 
if you were to withhold from them the bread of life which they ask, 
the words of one of the Fathers of your Church might be applied 
to you: 

“ Thy brother asked for help and protection; thou remainest deaf 
to his appeal; thou hast not gone to his assistance, therefore thou 
hast killed him.” 

(Loud applause on the Socialist benches. The orator is congratu¬ 
lated by his political friends.) 

SPEECH BY M. DE FAVEREAU. 

M. de Favereau (Minister for Foreign Affairs) :—M. Yandervelde 
has just affirmed that the successive interpellations which he has 
addressed to the Government on the subject of the administration 
of the Congo State have never been made under circumstances so 
favourable to the thesis which he has developed. This assertion 
astonishes me. gentlemen, because, if an interpellation on the Congo 
has appeared to me inopportune, it is this particular interpellation. 
We find ourselves in the presence of the most evident proof of 
the desire of the Congo State to fill up the lacunae , to correct the 
faults of its Administration, and to provide the remedies and the 
improvements which acknowledged facts necessitate. 

It is at the very moment when the Congo State has appointed 
a Commission of Inquiry, in order to throw light upon the charges 
which have been made against it, at the moment when it publishes 
the results of its impartial investigations, at the time when it has 
named a Commission instructed to study practical reforms, it is 
at this moment that the honourable member associates himself with 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 29 

an abominable Press campaign, which has not hesitated to calum¬ 
niate v (violent interruptions on the extreme left—uproar). 

M. Lorand:—I t is your language which is abominable. Every¬ 
thing which M. Vandervelde has advanced is admitted by the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry. 

M. Leonard :—It is not from our side that calumnies proceed. 

M. de Favereau:—I did not say what you seem to have under¬ 
stood me to say (uproar continues). 

M. Caeluwaert :—No, but that is in your thoughts. 

M. Pepin :—Then amongst the calumniators are to be found mag¬ 
istrates. 

Vandervelde:—I s it I whom you accuse of having been guilty 
of calumny? s j 

M. de Favereau:—I said that M. Vandervelde had associated 
himself, by his speech, with an abominable Press campaign which 
has not hesitated to calumniate. . - 

M. Caeluwaert:—I t is you who are calumniating. 

M. Vandervelde:—M y statements are based upon official reports, 
which confound you. 

M. de Favereau:—I will come to the facts, and to the official 
Report. 

M. Leonard :—Why do you not distribute the Report to the Mem¬ 
bers of the House? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer (Premier, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
and Minister of Public Works) :—The House has just decided that 
the Report shall be distributed to its members. 

M. de Favereau:—G entlemen, M. Vandervelde has framed his 
demand of interpellation in the following terms:— 

1. “ On the subject of the powers which accrue to Belgium 

as signatory party to the Act of Berlin of 1885. 

2. “ As to the disadvantages which result to Belgium from 

the system of personal union with the Congo State. 

3. “ As to the placing at the disposal of that State of officers 

and officials paid by Belgium.” 

The interpellation was, therefore, introduced in the most clever 
manner. The honourable member knows the reciprocal juridical 
situation of Belgium and the Congo State. He knows that the two 
Governments are distinct, f and that we cannot be rendered responsible 
for acts in which we have hot participated. 

Therefore, he chose the three points which I have indicated, but 
which do not constitute the true object of the interpellation, and 
have simply served to introduce it, because the honourable member 
could not bring accusations against the Congo State without seeking 

* Suppressing the entire evidence—that is to say, every single deposition 
of European and native witnesses—upon which the conclusions of the Com¬ 
missioners were arrived at! If that evidence had been published, the futility 
of the recommendations of the Commissioners would have been apparent 
to all. 

f Foreign opinion, especially American opinion, deluded in part by Baron 
Moncheur, and the Belgian Consular Service, into believing that to attack the 
abominations of Leopoklian rule in Africa is to attack the Belgian nation , will 
bear this passage, and M. de Smet de Naeyer’s statements (further on), in 
mind. On April 3rd, in the Belgian Senate, Count d’Ursel asked M. de Favereau 
to appoint a Belgian Consul to the Congo, to protect in that “ foreign State ” 
the interests of Belgian citizens ! 



30 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

to involve the responsibility of the Belgian Government. It is thus 
that he has made a speech in this House in which complaints have 
been presented with partiality and regrettable exaggeration (violent 
protests from the extreme left). 

M. A. Daens: —Prove what you are saying. You are declaiming 
(interruption). 

M. de Favereau: —After having allowed M. Vandervelde to speak 
without interrupting him, it would be only fair to allow me to reply. 

M. P. Daens :—Speak, then, but do not insult. 

M. de Favereau: —By what right could we intervene in the inter¬ 
nal affairs of the Congo State? M. Vandervelde cited Article 6 of 
the General Act of Berlin, but this Article is drawn up in the vaguest 
terms. Where, in the Act of the Conference of Berlin, does the hon¬ 
ourable member see that the signatory Powers have the right, recip¬ 
rocally, of controlling the fulfilment of the obligations contained 
in that article? If the honourable member knew the protocols of 
that Act, he would be aware that, on the contrary, the endeavour of 
the plenipotentiaries assembled at Berlin was to respect the sover¬ 
eignty of the Powers having possessions in the Congo Basin. It 
would be contrary to all principles of international law that a Gov¬ 
ernment should interfere with the internal administration of a 
Sovereign State.* 

M. Jan son :—What is taking place in Morocco ? 

M. Terwagne: —The Minister is visibly embarrassed. 

M. de Favereau: —The duty of a State, having possessions in the 
conventional Basin of the Congo, is to carry out in its legislation the 
pledges which it contracted by adhering to the Act of the Conference 
of Berlin, but when the legislation of that State has carried out 
these pledges, it has satisfied the obligation contracted. Has the 
Congo State carried out this duty? On this point I give you the 
advice of a man whose competence you will not contest—Lord Cran- 
borne, British Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, did not 
hesitate to recognise— 

“ That, as regards the laws of the Congo State, they leave little to be desired. 
They are full of regulations with a view of protecting the natives against ill- 
treatment, and bettering their material condition. There was no doubt that 
the Administration of the Congo had been characterised in a high degree 
by a certain kind of progress.” f 

Gentlemen, it must not be forgotten that the territory of the Congo 
State is not the only one situated in the Conventional Basin of the 
Congo. Other Powers have rights therein, which, according to the 
general terms of the Act of Berlin, would be open to the same neces¬ 
sities of control. If such a pretension, which would not be based 
upon any specific text, were put forward, it would be evidently con¬ 
trary to the principles of international law, which were expressed 


* Whose status was recognised by those very Powers, without which recog¬ 
nition there would have been no Congo State. 

t A certain kind of “ administrative development ” were the words actually 
used (Hansard, 20th May, 1903). So little was the House impressed with Lord 
Cranborne’s apologetics, that, in the course of this very debate, it passed, unani¬ 
mously, a resolution demanding that the British Government should communi¬ 
cate with the Powers, with a view to the adoption of measures calculated to 
put a stop to the “ evils prevalent ” in the Congo State ! 






CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 31 

with such good authority by the Duke of Wellington, at the Congress 
of Verona. 

“ The Government of His Majesty is of opinion, that to censure the affairs of 
an independent State, unless these affairs affect the interests of the subjects 
of His Majesty, is incompatible with the principles according to which the 
British Government has invariably acted in all questions relating to the internal 
affairs of other countries.'” * 

If in law we have no right to interfere with the internal affairs 
of the Congo State, our intervention would be, in practice, as I said 
just now, if possible, still less justified. I have just recalled that the 
Congo State had ordered a searching and conscientious enquiry into 
its internal administration, and in so doing it has followed the 
example of other countries, which, in analogous circumstances, have 
not hesitated to adopt the same policy. M. Vandervelde, who has 
read the work of M. Cattier, has evidently forgotten the passage in 
which the author admits—“ It is but fair to add that the Govern¬ 
ment of the Congo supported from that time onwards the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry to the extent of its power.” The Commission itself 
recognised in its Report:— 

“ During the whole of our stay in the Congo we found, amongst the officials 
and agents of the State, as well as amongst the trading agents and the mission¬ 
aries of all denominations, the fullest assistance. Of the documents which the 
Commission thought it useful to consult, to arrive at the manifestation of the 
truth, such as political reports, administrative or judicial minutes, copies of 
letters, private correspondence, all were immediately handed to us at our 
request, and sometimes spontaneously, without the Commission having been 
compelled, on any single occasion, to use the rights of search and of seizure 
which had been entrusted to it.” 

Foreign Governments have also rendered homage to the sincere desire 
of the Congo State to throw complete light upon its affairs. 

M. A. Daens :—It might, perhaps, be well to postpone the continu¬ 
ation of this discussion until to-morrow, for the Minister is not in a 
position to reply to us to-day (laughter on the extreme left). 

M. Terwagne :—You are right. 

M. de Broqueville : —Let the Minister speak. 

M. de Favereau :— Lord Lansdowne wrote :— 

“ The memorandum which we have received from the Congo Government 
proves that the latter has decided to seek the truth by all means which do not 
imply foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the Congo State.” 

As you see, it is not only in Belgium, but also abroad—notably in 
England—that the loyalty with which the Commission of Inquiry 
was instituted has been recognised. The Commission, moreover, was 
composed—M. Vandervelde recognised it—in the best way possible, 
to facilitate the aims which it was called upon to carry out. This is 
also recognised by the British Government, which, in a letter Lord 
Lansdowne wrote to Sir Constantine Phipps, said:— 

“ The high position occupied by the members of this Commission, and their 
judicial competence, allow me to hope that their investigations will be crowned 
with success, and characterised by perfect impartiality. After having appointed 
the Commission, a decree invests the members with the power of hearing all 


* Why not have gone back to the time of the Deluge for quotations? More¬ 
over, the interests of the subjects of His Majesty are affected. 








32 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

necessary testimony, to draw up reports, and to defer to the Tribunals, if neces¬ 
sary, crimes whose existence may have been established by the Inquiry. The 
Government of His Majesty relies upon the largest interpretation being given 
to this part of the decree, and that all the authorities of the Congo State will 
do their best to facilitate the Enquiry.” 

It is in this spirit that the Inquiry was conducted in the Congo, 
with the collaboration of all the officials to whom the Commissioners 
addressed themselves. We find this testimony amongst one of the 
most convinced and passionate opponents of the Congo, the Rev. J. H. 
Harris, who, after having been heard by the Commission, wrote, in a 
report to the British Consul at Boma, as follows:— 

“ We think it would have been difficult to have chosen men of a more conscien¬ 
tious and honest character than M. Janssens, Baron Nisco, and Dr. Schumacher; 
two secretaries, Messieurs Denyn and Dr. Gregoire, are very devoted men, and 
we are particularly grateful to the latter for the patience and ability which he 
displays as interpreter. M. Janssens shows himself full of courage in undertak¬ 
ing, at his age, sucji a work. His patience each time that we wished to put a 
question to the witnesses was most remarkable. This applies, moreover, to the 
other members of the Commission.” * 

This, gentlemen, is the homage which has been rendered by one of 
the witnesses before the Commission, by one of the most determined 
opponents of the Congo Administration. The desire of the Congo 
State to throw light upon all the charges to which its Administration 
has been subjected, is further evinced by the fact of the constitution 
of the Commission, by the fact that it was instituted, by the way in 
which it has accomplished its mission, by its Report. This attitude 
is re-affirmed by the nomination of a Commission of Reforms, 
appointed in view of examining the conclusions of the Commission of 
Inquiry, and their practical application. The honourable member 
criticised very strongly the composition of this Commission. He said 
it only includes four members who are not mixed up with Congolese 
matters, and too many officials; but is it not necessary, in carrying 
out an examination which bears upon administrative reforms, that 
the people who by their functions are the best informed on the object 
in question, should be listened to, and should be able to give advice on 
the applicability of the proposed reforms? 

M. Yandervelde:— Do not the missionaries know what has taken 
place in the Congo ? 

M. de Favereau:- —Would it not have been wiser and more equita¬ 
ble to have waited until the Commission of Reforms had accomplished 
its labours before pronouncing its condemnation? The speech of the 
honourable member overlooks a fact, which appears to me to over¬ 
shadow the whole situation. It is not possible to remove a popula¬ 
tion from the frightful barbarism in which it has groveled for so 
many centuries, whose morality is often low and degraded, without 
compelling it to make a considerable effort to which its characteristics 
and its inveterate habits are opposed. 

M. A. Daens :—The means chosen is extermination. 

M. Lorand : — Quite so. 

M. de Favereau: —Absurd! 


* No one has ever suggested that the Commission displayed other than strict 
impartiality in taking evidence. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 33 

M. Lor and: —-The results of the Commission’s inquiry prove it. 
The population is exploited to such a degree, by such methods, that 
depopulation is rapid; that is what the impartial men who composed 
the Commission have recognised. 

M. de Favereau:— M. Vandervelde suggests to the Belgian Gov¬ 
ernment various means of action in regard to the Congo State. I 
have given the reasons which are opposed to our intervention, reasons 
of law and of fact. 

M. Mansart :— Refuse your officers. 

M. de Favereau:— M. Vandervelde said that he might cancel the 
authorisation given to the King in 1885 to be Sovereign of the Congo 
State. 

M. Vandervelde:— I said that we could subordinate the mainte¬ 
nance of that authority to the realisation of reforms. 

M. de Favereau:— It may be conceived that, when the proposal 
was first mooted by M. Beernaert in 1885, doubt should have been 
entertained as to the consequences which the proposal might have 
upon the international situation in Belgium. These apprehensions 
were given expression to at the time in the two Houses, but, as you 
know, gentlemen, they were not supported, and the lavr was voted 
with virtual unanimity. After twenty years are these doubts still 
justifiable, when the union of the two crowns has caused no confusion, 
no error, in the domain of international affairs? To-day, a long 
experience proves that the practice has no inconveniences attached to 
it (ironical laughter on the left and on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand :— You are poking fun at us. 

M. de Favereau:— Very well — state what these undesirabilities are. 

M. Lorand: —They are palpable. There are not only undersira- 
bilities; there are. scandals and crimes. 

M. de Favereau: —Mention the difficulties. 

M. Lorand :—I have only to read from the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion, which is full of admissions of abuses, scandals and crimes, to 
be found on every page of the Report. 

M. Mansart :—The Minister has not read the Report! 

M. de Favereau: —From the international point of view there are 
no difficulties. 

M. Lorand:— Under such conditions it becomes useless to discuss 
with you. 

M. A. Daens :—Then you have read nothing. 

M. Lorand:— You are reciting to us a lesson which you have 
learned in advance, and, under such conditions, all discussion is 

useless. 

M. A. Daens: Robbery, violence, rapine, oppression—is all this 
nothing? 

M. de Favereau:— Your generalities prove nothing. 

M. A. Daens :—But there are the facts! You have read nothing! 

M. de Favereau :— You have given no facts. 

M. Lorand:— Your attitude is pitiable (laughter on the extreme 
left). 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-3 


34 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Bertrand: —But you have no pity for the natives (renewed 
laughter). 

M. de Favereau: —Gentlemen, I repeat, the personal union has 
brought about no inconveniences, and no confusion, from the interna¬ 
tional point of view. M. Vandervelde spoke of the dispute which 
has arisen between the Congo State and England in the Bahr-el- 
Ghazal. We think that the interpretation of the Convention of 1894 
has given rise, on various occasions, to an exchange of views between 
the two Governments. We are not aware of the stage which these 
negotiations have now reached, but we have no reason to doubt that 
the two parties concerned, in a common spirit of conciliation, will 
succeed in bringing about a satisfactory solution. M. Vandervelde 
has told us to withdraw our officers and officials in Congo State 
service. Under all Governments, at all periods of our history, the 
Belgian Government has consented to place its officers and its officials 
at the disposal of foreign States, and would you refuse to lend your 
help to a State which has been founded by our Sovereign, and for 
Belgium, when you grant that assistance to China, to Persia, and 
other countries which demand it? No, gentlemen, no one will under¬ 
stand such language. The Congo, watered with Belgian blood, must 
remain a Belgian work. 

M. Delporte: —So, now it is a Belgian work? A moment ago 
you said it was a work with which we had nothing to do (laughter 
on the extreme left). 

M. de Favereau: —A work in which many of our countrymen have 
devoted heroic effort, and even their lives. 

M. Vandervelde :—You have not completed your reply to my ques¬ 
tion. 

M. de Favereau: —I am coming to it. The honourable member re¬ 
called, in a very incomplete way, the question he had addressed to 
me. I may be allowed to read it to the House, and the House will 
judge that my reply was an adequate one. Here is the text of the 
question:— 

“ In his book upon the administration of the Congo State, M. Cattier, Pro¬ 
fessor at the University of Brussels, expresses himself in the following manner, 
upon the subject of the Domaine de la Couronne :— 

1. —Press Bureau. —This Bureau is situate in the offices of the Central Gov¬ 
ernment (of the Congo State) at Brussels. 

It was first of all directed by a Belgian judge placed at the disposal of the 
State by the Belgian Government. To this Bureau was also attached a Belgian 
Vice-Consul, paid by the Belgian Government. This official has been sent to the 
various English Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, to make an enquiry into 
the lot of the native peoples. It is the Press Bureau which draws up the 
majority of articles which appear in the newspapers which are friendly to the 
Congo State. 

2. —Subsidies to the Belgian and Foreign Press. —It is fair to recognise that 
a certain number of Belgian papers belonging to the three great political 
parties have resisted the solicitations of the State and the seductions of the 
gold from the Domaine de la Couronne. 

“Are these facts accurate? In the affirmative, does the Minister think that 
the State can lend its officials to the Congo State for the purpose of fulfilling, 
at the cost of the Belgian taxpayer, functions which are absolutely foreign 
to their normal employment? ” 

I could not reply to the part of the question which bore on facts 
which have nothing to do with my Department, and of which, more-- 
over, I was ignorant. I, therefore, contented myself with meeting the 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 35 

facts which were within my competence, and this is what I did, in 
a very clear and very precise way. As regards placing at the disposal 
of the Congo^tate, officials connected with the Belgian Foreign Office, 
3 recalled the Administrative rules of my Department. I added that, 
at the present ntoment, there were only two officials, connected with 
my Department, who had asked to be relieved of their functions, 
in order to be placed at the disposal of the Congo State, and I con¬ 
cluded by saying that the Consul who had been sent on a mission 
on the '‘Guinea Coast had returned ill, that his health was compro¬ 
mised, and that under these conditions it was only just and humane— 
the honourable member, who concerns himself so greatly with the 
health of the natives, should* not complain if I have some regard for 
the health of a very meritorious agent—to grant him leave. If this 
official prefers, in his leisure time, during his convalescence, to com¬ 
bat the abominable Press campaign to which I referred a moment 
ago (violent interruption on the extreme left), he is doing the work 
of a good patriot, and I can only congratulate him (uproar on the 
extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde :—You admit, then, that an official of the Belgian 
Government was employed on the Press Bureau of the Congo State, 
and drew up articles against the adversaries of an abominable system, 
which you dare not defend here? * 

M. Lorand: —And you congratulate him! 

M. de Faverex\u No, no. I did not say that (interruption on 
the extreme left). 

M. Lorand : —Is it true, or is it not ? 

M. de Favereau:— I said that if this official . . . 

M. Vandervelde :—If the statement were not true, you would long 
ago have denied it. 

M. de Favereau: —I said that if this official, during his conva¬ 
lescence, and when on leave, used his spare time in defending the 
Congo and Belgians against the charges of a hostile Press, he only 
deserves congratulations (protests on the extreme left). That is 
my view. You are naturally free to have another. 

M. Leonard: —You are in a quandary. 

M. Vandervelde:— It is scandalous. 

M. de Favereau:— I shall not return to the analysis which M. 
Vandervelde has made of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. 
The honourable member has had the time to prepare his speech, 
and he presented the Report of the Commission of Inquiry to this 
House under the most unfavourable aspect towards the Administra¬ 
tion of the Congo. All those who have read this Report will see that 
there is on the part of the honourable member a studious desire to 
exaggerate. 

M. Vandervelde:— And the Catholic missionaries—are they ani¬ 
mated by the same desire ? 

M. de Favereau: —Moreover, M. Neujean asked a little while ago 
that the Report should be distributed. All of you, gentlemen, will 
be in a position to read it, and to judge for yourselves. No doubt 
the Administration of the Congo has given rise to grave and regret¬ 
table abuses. 

M. A. Daens: —Crimes! 

M. de Favereau: —Nobody denies it. I cannot discuss all these 
points to-day. There is one, however, which I hasten to take up. 


36 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

The honourable member said that the communal property of the 
natives had been taken from them. 

M. Vandervelde :—It is the Commission which says that. 

M. de Favereau: —But the honourable member omits to say that 
the Commission only asks for the just interpretation, and the equi¬ 
table application, of the laws confirming the tenure of the natives 
in the land which they occupy through the authority of their Chiefs.* 
The significance of this conclusion will not escape you, and the Com¬ 
mission recognises that if legislation had been applied in the spirit 
in which it had been ordered, it would have prevented the abuses 
pointed out in the Report, and brought before this House by the 
honourable member. M. Vandervelde thinks it unjust to compel the 
natives to collect various quantities of rubber. Here five kilos., there 
15 kilos. ... 

M. Vandervelde: —I said nine kilos. Moreover, it is the Report 
of the Commission of Inquiry which gives this figure. 

M. de Favereau: —Do not let us attach so much importance to 
figures for the moment. I note that you criticised the various 
amounts of rubber which natives are pledged to bring in. 

M. Vandervelde: —The criticism is in the Report of the Com¬ 
mission! (Laughter on the extreme left). 

M. de Favereau: —The honourable member forgets to add that, 
if the Commission noted the fact, it did not, as far as I can remember, 
condemn it. It could not do so, seeing that all the regions are not 
equally rich in rubber vines, and that to compel the natives to furnish 
an equal quantity throughout the country would have been unjust 
and iniquitous. 

M. Vandervelde:— The Commission condemned the excessive na¬ 
ture of the coercion placed upon the people, in the matter of rubber, 
throughout the entire country. 

M. de Favereau:— That is another question. 

M. Vandervelde:— It is the question. 

M. de Favereau: —Speaking of the Domaine de la Couronne , the 
honourable member made use of the book of M. Cattier, which is 
very vague .... 

M. Vandervelde:— Then be more precise. 

M. de Favereau: — . . . and very erroneous. Not knowing 

the revenues of the Domaine de la Gouronne.\ M. Cattier made sun¬ 
dry calculations, taking as a basis various hypotheses, to establish 
the amounts. He arrives at a figure between 70 and 80 millions of 
francs for the last ten years. This sum is evidently very exagger¬ 
ated. Even the basis of the calculations is erroneous, for the various 
regions of the Congo are not equally rich in rubber vines. It is, 

*If M. de Favereau had been asked to explain the meaning of this sentence, 
he would assuredly have been unable to do so. 

t Be it noted that the existence of an enormous section of the Congo ter 
ritory, known as the Domaine de la Couronne, and whose revenues are not 
paid into the Treasury of the Congo State, is nowhere denied by the official 
defenders of the State throughout this debate. That is the capital point. Yet, 
as recently as September, 1903, M. de Cuvelier, King Leopold’s principal Sec¬ 
retary of State, penned the following sentence, in a Memorandum actually com¬ 
municated to the Powers, including Great Britain: “All the receipts of the 
Domaine are paid into the Treasury!! ” M. de Cuvelier’s ideas of truth are 
more primitive than those of the Congo natives, whom the official Commu¬ 
niques drawn up by him are never tired of representing as confirmed liars. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 37 

however, on the total product of the harvest of rubber, and on the 
total extent of the territory of the State and of the Domaine de la 
Couronne , that M. Cattier bases his calculations. He says that the 
Domaine de la Couronne has been worked since 1896. Now, this is 
an error, and a new source of exaggeration. The exploitation of this 
Domaine dates from a very much more recent period.* We may, 
therefore, say all of these calculations, that they have not a leg to 
stand upon (protests from the extreme left). 

M. Bertrand :—What is the exact figure ? 

M. Vandervelde: —If you say that the figure is inaccurate, you 
must know the accurate figure. In that case loyalty compels you to 
tell us what it is. 

M. de Favereau: —I do not know what it is. (Ironical laughter 
from the extreme left). But I can assert that the calculation is 
erroneous, because the data which have served as its basis are in¬ 
accurate. 

M. Lorand: —Once again do you calumniate, without knowledge, 
and obviously by order (protests from the right). You do not ap¬ 
pear to have any proper appreciation of the significance of the word 
u calumniate.” 

M. de Favereau: —The honourable member . . . 

M. Lorand:— You are not entitled, without calumniating, to de¬ 
clare that a figure is inaccurate, when you declare at the same time 
that you do not know what the real figure is. 

M. de Favereau: —You have no right to declare that a figure is 
accurate when the calculations are erroneous, f I repeat that the 
basis upon which the calculation has been established is false (pro¬ 
tests from the extreme left). 

M. Lorand:— You know nothing about it. You can say that you 
think that the basis is inaccurate, but you have no right to declare 
that the figure is inaccurate, when you say that you do not know what 
the figure is. 

M. Vandervelde:— Either you know, and you are dissimulating, 
or you do not know; and in that case you have no right to speak as 
you are doing (applause from the extreme left) (protests from the 
right). 

M. de Favereau : —Indeed ! Have I not then the right to answer 
you? 

M. A. Daens :—You will find it difficult. 

M. de Favereau: —Am I not allowed to reply to questionable state¬ 
ments like those which you produce ? 

M. Vandervelde: —When a figure is inaccurate, it should be 
rectified. 

M. de Favereau: —Here is another inaccurate figure. M. Cattier, 
and M. Vandervelde quoting from him, maintains that the loan on 
the lottery system has brought in 50 millions of francs to the Congo 
State. Is it permissible to make such a statement, after the formal 
declarations made by my honourable colleague, the Chancellor of the 


* A portion of the Domaine de la Couronne was, at any rate, in full exploita¬ 
tion nine years ago, the year in which the atrocities of Lieut. Massard began 
to be perpetrated. The Domaine de la Couronne was created in 1896. 

f A mere statement by so obviously ill-informed a Minister carries no weight. 



38 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Exchequer, barely eight months ago? The loan has brought in, at 
the most, seven or eight millions. 

M. Bertrand:— Allonsdond* 

M. Vandervelde :—150 million francs have been loaned, in order to 
obtain eight million francs net! Who is going to believe such a 
thing ? 

M. de Favereau: —If you had studied the question, you would un¬ 
derstand it better. 

M. Vandarvelde :—I know it probably better than you do (approv¬ 
ing laughter from the Socialist benches). 

M. de Favereau: —And, you will observe, here again is an error. 
It is assumed that the whole of the loan has been issued, which is 
untrue, t 

M. Leonard :—This is too much! 

M. de Favereau: —I will conclude in a moment. M. Vandervelde 
spoke to us of a possible International Conference. I do not know to 
what he makes allusion. The only question before me at the present 
moment is the question of revising the Convention of 1899, on the 
spirit trade in Africa. I conclude, gentlemen. 

M. Delporte —You are doing the right thing, because, the honour¬ 
able members on the right are weary. 

Mr. de Favereau: —I regret that, in the heart of the Belgian Par¬ 
liament, a work like the Congo enterprise, which redounds to the 
honour of those who have devoted themselves to it body and soul, 
should be attacked by the leader of one of the Parliamentary Parties, 
who is thus furnishing weapons to those who are conducting an 
abominable Press campaign against this grand work. 

M. Vandervelde:— It is the Commission of Inquiry which fur¬ 
nishes those weapons, not I. 

M. de Favereau: —I am glad that the House has resolved to dis¬ 
tribute the Report to each of its members. I ask them to read it with 
calmness and impartiality, and to purge their judgment of all passion. 

M. Vandervelde :—It is not necessary to comment it. 

M. de Favereau: —And to take note of it without partiality. 

M. Roger :—The partiality lies with you. 

M. de Favereau :—This grand work is above your attacks. 

M. Leonard: —This is absurd. All that you are saying is.foreign 
to the debate. 

M. de Favereau:— It is above contemptible attacks, both by the 
spirit which has inspired it and by the thought which has dictated 
the improvements and the reforms to be incorporated in it. 

M. Vandervelde :—It is not above the duties of humanity. 

M. de Favereau: —Thanks to the labours of the Commission of 
Inquiry, thanks to the labours of the Commission of Reforms, it will 
be possible to give to our future Colony an Administration which will 
bear comparison with that of the best administered Colonies. 

M. Vandervelde: —Now you are associating yourself with the 
abominable campaign of calumny of which you speak! I ask to be 
allowed to ventilate a personal matter. 

* Anglicc, “Absurd.” 

t The whole of the loan has been issued, 10 millions in 1888, 60 millions in 
1889, and 80 millions in 1902. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. 39 

(The Speaker: —M. Vandervelde is in command of the House.) 

M. Vandervelde: —I would ask the honourable Minister for For¬ 
eign Affairs, who accuses me of having associated myself with a cam¬ 
paign of calumny, to tell me who are the calumniators to whom he 
alludes ? 

(The Speaker: —The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in command 
of the House.) 

M. de Favereau:— I did not say M. Vandervelde had associated 
himself with calumniators. 

M. Vandervelde: —You said that I had associated myself with a 
campaign of calumny. 

M. de Favereau: I said that the campaign carried on by organs 
of the Press was calumnious. 

M. Vandervelde: —Which organs? 

M. de Favereau: —Conducted in a spirit of abuse, and not hesitat¬ 
ing before calumny. They are only too well known.* 

M. Vandervelde: —It is necessary that you should give their 
names. We will then reply. 

M. Woeste :—No catechisms! 

M. Vandervelde :—Then no insinuations. 

M. de Favereau: —I will reply notably that bogus photographs 
have been published in illustrated papersf (laughter on the right). 

M. Vandervelde : —I only know one pamphlet in which a series of 
facts, which were evidently untrue, were put forward, and in which 
fabricated photographs were incorporated. This was a pamphlet 
published by a certain Captain Burrows, and came before the British 
Courts. Now, as soon as this pamphlet was published, we immedi¬ 
ately denied all connection with Captain Burrows, but we have since 
asked ourselves if this publication had not been a trap, and if the 
Congo State had not itself raised up an adversary who could be so 
easily confounded (ironical laughter on the right). 

M. Hoyois: —And when you asked yourself that, what did you 
reply to yourself? It would be interesting to know.J 


, *A tribute to the West African Mail! 

f M. de Favereau is here evidently referring to the issue of the official organ 
of the Congo Reform Association for September, containing a series of photo¬ 
graphs of mutilated natives, taken by Mrs. Harris, and some of the subjects of 
which appeared before the Commission of Inquiry. These photographs were 
alleged by VEtoile Beige , the subsidised Petit Bleu, and other papers, more or 
less in relation with King Leopold’s Press Bureau, to have been fabricated. 
Absurd as was the accusation, Mrs. Harris, at our request, made a formal dec¬ 
laration before the Marquis of Bath, the Lord-Lieutenant of the County of 
Somerset, testifying to the genuineness of the photographs (the negatives of 
which are mostly in this country). This declaration was reproduced in the 
Brussels paper Le Peuple, but the scurrilous charge has never been withdrawn 
by King Leopold’s scurrilous organs; and it has been reproduced in the French 
and German papers subsidised by the Congo State, and doubtless in papers of 
other countries. 

$ It would be also interesting to know how it comes that the publisher of 
Capt. Burrows’ book has not been called upon to pay a penny of the damages 
inflicted by the British Court, which I understand to be the case. 




40 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


SECOND DAY’S DEBATE (FEB. 27). 

M. Verhaegen (Catholic), M. Bertrand (Socialist), M. Woeste 
(Catholic: head of an important section of the Clerical Party), M. 
Colfs (Catholic). 

Government communication. 

M. Van den Heuvel (Minister of Justice) :—Gentlemen, on the 
evening of the 20th February I received this letter from a distin¬ 
guished judge of the Tribunal of First Instance in Brussels. The 
following is its text:— 

“ Brussels, 

“ 20th February, 1906. 

“ I have just listened to the speech of M. Vandervelde, and the speeches of 
“ some other orators at the sitting this afternoon, relating to a magistrate of 
“ the Tribunal of First Instance. As certain persons might, perhaps, conclude 
“ from these declarations that the magistrate in question was head of a Bureau 
“ instructed with distributing ‘ funds to the Press,’ or what has been called a 
“ ‘ Bureau of Corruption,’ I desire, if this interpretation were given to these 
“ statements, to reject it immediately, and with great energy, and to oppose to 
“ it the most categorical denial. I think it my duty to inform you of the fact. 

“ Yours faithfully, 

“(Signed) Rolin, 

“ Judge of the Tribunal of First Instance.” 

M. de Favereau (Minister for Foreign Affairs) :—Gentlemen, I 
have also received a letter from the Vice-Consul, accused by M. Van¬ 
dervelde at the sitting of last Tuesday. It is as follows :— 

“M. le Baron .—In the course of the speech pronounced by M. Vandervelde at 
“ the sitting of the House last Tuesday, some of his words have been inter- 
“ preted as attributing to me the direction of the ‘ Bureau of Corruption of the 
“ Press.’ I oppose to this interpretation the most formal denial. 

“ Yours faithfully, 

“(Signed) Goffart, 

“ Vice-Consul for Belgium.” 

On a Motion for order. 

M. Vandervelde: —Gentlemen, the Minister for Justice and the 
Minister for Foreign Affairs have just read out to the House two 
signed letters, one by M. Bolin, Judge of the Tribunal of First 
Instance for Brussels, the other by M. Goffart, Vice-Consul for Bel¬ 
gium. The signatories of these letters declare that it would be unjust 
to assert that they have directed a Bureau for the corruption of the 
Press. 

It is sufficient to read the speech which I made last week, in 
order to see that these two denials are illusory, and that I made 
no such accusations either against M. Goffart or M. Bolin. What 
I said was that they were at the head of the Press Bureau, 
and the fact is not denied. I did not say that the funds distributed 
to the Press had been distributed by them personally; in point of 
fact, those funds were distributed by other persons. 

Continuation of the Debate. 

The Speaker: —We now resume the Vandervelde interpellation. 
M. Verhaegen is in command of the House. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIYES. 41 

SPEECH BY M. VERHAEGEN. 

M. Verhaegen:— Gentlemen, M. Vandervelde, in interpellating 
the Minister for Foreign Affairs “on the duties incumbent on Bel¬ 
gium as signatory Power to the Act of Berlin, 1885,” based himself, 
on the one hand, on Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the said Act of Berlin; 
and, on the other, on the Report of the Congo Commission of Inquiry. 
I shall indicate presently the extent to which I think myself justified 
in associating myself with the protests which the honourable member 
has brought against the acts and the abuses pointed out by the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry, respecting the Administration of the Congo 
State, acts and proceedings which have undoubtedly shaken public 
opinion in Belgium to its depths. Before dealing with this part of my 
speech, I desire, however, placing myself also from the point of view 
of Article 6 of the Act of Berlin, to examine the duties which are 
incumbent upon Belgium towards the Belgian missionaries who go 
to the Congo. Article G of the Act of Berlin is precise :— 

“ All the Powers shall protect and favour, without distinction of nationality 
or creed, all religious, scientific, or charitable Institutions and enterprises. 
Christian missionaries, scientists, explorers, their escorts, their goods, their be¬ 
longings, shall be the object of special protection.” 

I do not overlook the fact that the Act of Berlin does not au¬ 
thorise the signatory Powers to intervene in the affairs of the Congo 
State. This rule must give way when the essential interests of their 
subjects are affected. The Foreign Minister recognised, by quoting 
the principles of international law, and by invoking in this connec¬ 
tion the authority of the Duke of Wellington at the Congress of 
Verona. “ The Government of His Majesty,” said the noble Duke, 
“ is of opinion that to censure the internal affairs of an independent 
State, unless the essential interests of the subjects of His Majesty 
are affected, is incompatible with the principles according to which 
the British Government has invariably acted on all questions relating 
to the internal affairs of other countries.” 

Now, such is precisely the case which faces us in relation to the 
Belgian missionaries on the Congo. Amongst the essential interests 
of those citizens, professional honour, which is their sole property 
on this earth, figures in the front rank. I shall attempt to convince 
the House that Belgium cannot remain indifferent to the essential 
interests of her citizens. Catholic missionaries, nearly all Belgians, 
hastened to comply with the appeal of the Congo State, which 
answered at the same time to the suggestions of their own hearts, 
and proceeded to Central Africa. They settled in the spots assigned 
to them without any thought of the dangers of the climate. Young 
and old rivalled one another in ardour, hard for themselves, tender 
for the unhappy natives, a splendid band, before whom I bow with 
respect, recruited from all social classes, and amongst whom I note 
the son of our sympathetic colleague, M. Van Naeman; the mission¬ 
aries have laboured incessantly on the Congo; much money has been 
spent by them, through the charity of Belgian Catholics. They have 
sacrificed their health; many have died, or have only returned to die. 

What did they go out there for ? To collect ivory, rubber, or gold ? 
Better than that. To receive substantial salaries? To receive hon¬ 
ours, or a name on the scroll of history? Better still. They have 
received, and they receive every day, the blessings of the natives. 


42 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPEESENTATIVES. 

They bring the word and the love of God to the land of Africa. 
They are expanding Christian civilisation in the Congo—that is to 
say, the civilisation which has made Europe. Thanks to the mis¬ 
sionaries, thanks to the King, who opened the road for them, and 
who appealed to them, deserving, therefore, the gratitude of all civil¬ 
ised humanity, millions of negroes, plunged in an abyss of degrada¬ 
tion, have seen the light which the Saviour brought into the world. 
They have heard, and they have had practised towards them, the 
law which dominates, and which at the same time summarises, all 
divine teaching, “Love one another.” Thanks to the missionaries, 
native customs in the regions which they evangelise have become 
purer. The secular humiliation in which woman is placed has been 
altered for a higher ideal, family life has taken hold in the Congo. 
Monogamy has become respected. The native begins to understand 
that from the law of work a higher social standard emanates. Chris¬ 
tianity will put an end to the material and moral degradation of 
populations plunged for many centuries in the backwash of bar¬ 
barism. I do not wish to uselessly prolong my speech, but the House 
will allow me to point out a single example of the zeal and success 
attained by the Belgian missionaries. The small town of Baudouin- 
ville, founded near Lake Tanganyika by the White Fathers, num¬ 
bers to-day 300 families, formed of young negroes and negresses, 
whom the White Fathers and the nuns have brought up and inured 
to labour. Monogamy is the absolute rule, and produces its benefi¬ 
cent results. Whilst, under a polygamous regime , black women have 
usually only one child,* the three hundred young couples have alone 
increased the population of Baudouinville to 1,700 souls, and it seems 
that the process continues (laughter on the extreme left). 

To these 1,700 souls have been added 300 other natives from 
regions not worked by the missionaries; the 2,000 inhabitants of 
Baudouinville cultivate, without an}^ coercion, a thousand hectares 
of land, and enjoy a material prosperity, which is increasing, and 
which will develop if the State grants them other land. Gentlemen, 
is not this a magnificent result? And should we not desire that 
many cities like Baudouinville should exist on the Congo? Will it 
not be due to such enterprises that civilisation will penetrate rapidly, 
in a durable fashion, in the land of the black man? A few figures 
will permit the House to realise the work accomplished by the Bel¬ 
gian missionaries. 

Catholic missions in the Congo include at this moment 119 Priests, 
51 Fathers, 88 Nuns, or a total of 258 Missionaries, divided among 
the WFite Father^, the Premontres, the Trappists, the Mission¬ 
aries of Scheut, the Jesuits, the Redenrptorists, the Fathers du 
Ooeue de Jesus , apart from the congregations of women. These 
missionaries control 23,000 Christians whom they have baptised; 
they instruct 54,000 Catechumens, and give instruction to more 
than 9,000 children. They have 48 principal schools, 460 secondary 
schools, farms, chapels, agricultural colonies, apart from their hos¬ 
pitals and their schools. They receive from Belgian Catholics proof 
of the interest which the latter have in the Congo Missions, and spend 
each year more than £24,000; 120 missionaries have died on the field. 


*A highly questionable statement, to say the least. The census is also some¬ 
what remarkable. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 43 

What figures cannot show, is the admiration which is inspired in 
the native by the apostolic life of these religious men, the veneration 
and the confidence with which the latter are surrounded, the pro¬ 
digious influence exercised upon the natives by the absolute unselfish¬ 
ness of which the missionaries give an example. Such, gentlemen, is 
the secret of their power. They are expanding the field of civilisa¬ 
tion, without coercion, solely by their moral ascendancy, and one can 
say that they alone really civilise the native, because too often certain 
servants of the State, and certain agents of the Companies propagate 
around them nothing but terror and hatred. 

M. Vandervelde: —You are associating yourself, my dear col¬ 
league, with an infamous campaign of calumny! 

M. Verhaegen :—If you will wait a moment you will find that I 
shall associate myself, presently, still more directly to what you 
humorously call an infamous campaign of calumny. My intervention 
is, for me, a question of conscience, and, moreover, I have never 
thought that your speech was a campaign of calumny. 

M. A. Daens :—You are right to speak the truth. 

M. Verhaegen How weighty is the testimony, gentlemen, coming 
from men who are not of the Catholic faith, which confirms the state¬ 
ments I have just made! Listen to what Commandant Lemaire, who 
spent more than ten years in the Congo, has to say:— 

“Amongst magistrates, officers, agents of the State, and other white men in 
Africa, there are some good, some medium, and some indifferent; but amongst 
the missionaries there is only one class—the good. If I mention them, you are 
compelled to believe me, because I am not a believer. I am even an infidel in 
the fullest sense of the term. One often hears of civilisation ; but the true civili¬ 
sation is that to which the missionaries consecrate their lives out there.” 

Here is the testimony of another officer, who is also a Freethinker. 
I find the evidence in the Carillon (POstende :— 

“ In the Congo the missionaries are the only ones who work and civilise. One 
sees them with the negroes, cultivating their fields, instructing their children, 
teaching them arts and crafts, and all this with an unselfishness which all 
Europeans have been able to admire . . . No, the missionaries do not abuse 

the natives. Without them, civilisation would not have made one step forward 
on the Congo.” 

Not less specific is the opinion of the celebrated traveller Jerome 
Becker, already referred to. Commenting, in his book, “ The Life of 
Africa,” on the easy and enviable lot of the English missionaries, 
Jerome Becker adds:— 

“ The lot of the Roman missionary is not nearly so agreeable. The Catholic 
Father who expatriates himself to bring the good news to barbarous peoples, 
knows that the only help he can rely on is that of his own industry. His devo¬ 
tion will never be accounted to him in any profits. It is, therefore, his task 
alone which enthuses him, and makes him accomplish prodigies. He has not 
only to take with him his Bible and his Breviary, but he will use the plough of 
the peasant, the axe of the pioneer, the saw of the contractor and the builder, 
and the hammer of the engineer.” 

But there is another testimony, more important and still more 
authorised than those which I have cited; it is that of a dignitary of 
the Anglican Church, Canon Isaac Taylor, who in an article entitled 
“ The Failure of Missionaries,” and published in the great English 
periodical, The Fortnightly Review , thus expresses himself: 

“And our methods are not only opposed to success, but they are absolutely 
false. We must return to the methods which were crowned with such marvel¬ 
lous triumphs in the centuries w T hich saw the conversion of the Roman Empire.” 


44 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF BEPRESENTATIVES. 


“ * To evangelise Africa,’ wrote General Gordon from Khartoum, ‘ w T e must 
have apostles, men who, having abandoned everything—understand me well, 
everything—r-men who are dead to the world.’ And General Gordon, zealous 
Protestant that he was, never met anyone, unless it was a Roman missionary, 
who realised his ideal of the apostolic missionaries. In China he saw Protes¬ 
tant missionaries, receiving comfortable salaries of £300 a year, and preferring 
to stay on the coast, where they enjoyed European society and British comfort, 
whilst Roman priests left Europe without any hope of return, and lived in the 
interior of the country with the natives, living their lives. These missionaries 
are very far from their own country, without wife or child or salary, without 
comfort of any kind, without European Society. That is why the priests suc¬ 
ceed, as they deserve, while the Protestant missionaries succumb.” 

All those who are interested in Congo affairs have read the com¬ 
parison which M. Charles Buis, ex-Burgomaster of Brussels, has 
drawn between the Catholic Missions and the Protestant Missions of 
the Congo in his “ Croquis Congolais.” I will not read this to the 
House, but I feel I must mention the following lines, in the Belgique 
Coloniale , by M. Rene Vauthier, who is not a Catholic:— 

“ What strikes one at first sight, in regard to the Catholic Missions, is the 
apostolic character which their action manifestly shows. However much one 
might wish to do so, one could not attribute to the latter any other object than 
that of voluntary renunciation, suffering and sacrifice, lightly accepted, in view 
of rewards not one of which will directly or immediately affect the author of 
the good work at all. Pleasure is reduced to the success of the work of prose- 
lytism; it is merged, so to speak, with the spiritual exaltation procurable 
through faith.” 

I might recall, also, the recent praise which Colonel Thys, whose 
competence no one will discuss, has showered upon the missionaries, 
especially those whom Monsignor Stillemans sent to the Congo during 
the construction of the railway, but I intend to limit myself, and I 
conclude with quoting from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry 
the following sentence, which, while not constituting praise, is, 
nevertheless, the finest testimony which can be given to the Congo 
missionaries:— 

“The missionary listens to the native, helps him according to his means, 
makes himself the echo of all the complaints of the region; hence the astound¬ 
ing influence which the missionaries possess in some parts of the country. It 
exercises itself, not only amongst the natives within the purview of their 
religious propaganda, but often of the villages whose troubles they have listened 
to. The missionary becomes, in the eyes of the native of the region, the only 
representative of equity and justice.”* 

What I wish to establish, in placing before the House these numer¬ 
ous testimonies, is that the missionaries deserve all the praise which 
their conduct has won for them from men of independent character, 
who have not Catholic convictions. What the missionaries deserve, I 
say, is that particular care should be taken by those who are called 
upon to pass an opinion upon their actions to discern truth from 

* It is a pity, purely from the point of view of truth, and not from the point 
of view of the respective merits of Catholic and Protestant missionaries, that 
M. Verhaegen did not read out the whole paragraph of the Commission’s Re¬ 
port, from which the above is a quotation. We give, herewith, the opening sen¬ 
tences of the said passage, which were suppressed by M. Verhaegen 

“Often, also, in the regions where Evangelical stations are established, the 
native, instead of going to the magistrate, his only protector, adopts the custom, 
when he thinks he has a grievance against an agent or an executive officer, to 
confide in the missionary.” 

The above paragraph shows clearly that the Commissioners, in rendering this 
tribute, were rendering it, not to the Catholic missionaries at all, but to the 
Protestant missionaries! De gustibus non est disputandum. 












CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45 

error, and to judge sanely and with impartiality. And it is necessary 
to say this, for we find that, without having weighed and checked the 
value of the documents and of the testimony they received, the three 
very distinguished men whom the Sovereign King instructed to make 
an Inquiry into the conditions of the Congo State, blame severely 
the Catholic missionaries, while they praise the Protestant missiona¬ 
ries,* who, as a rule, have very little sympathy for the Congo State. 
They also praise the arch enemy of Catholic propaganda—the Prot¬ 
estant missionary, Bentley, now deceased. By what double abbera- 
tion of heart and of intellect did men of incontestable probity, men, 
whose high and proud independence I bear witness to, consent to 
blame, without serious inquiry, without contradictory examination, 
the Catholic heroes, the only civilizers of the natives, the finest 
champions of the civilising idea which presided at the foundations of 
the Congo State. How could they cover with flowers the enemies 
of the work of the King—the Protestant missionaries, who devote 
the greater part of their time in preaching that English supremacy 
is the one source of prosperity and happiness open to the peoples of 
the Congo State, f and in running down as far as possible the Congo 
State. 

I cannot explain such an attitude. Perhaps it is due to a prejudice, 
too common, alas, among certain very distinguished and very honest 
men, who call themselves Freethinkers, and who lose impartiality, 
freedom and even lucidity of spirit immediately it is a question of 
appreciating Catholic works. 

M. Vandervelde: —I should, however, point out to you that M. 
Schumacher]; is a Catholic, and not a Freethinker. 

M. Verhaegen :—I do not know the personal opinion of M, Schu¬ 
macher, but I cannot find any other explanation than the one I have 
given, and I still ask myself how it can be that men so distinguished 
as those who carried out the inquiry, should have passed such an 
opinion on the subject of the missionaries, without examination, 
and in the absence of all serious control. However that may be, I 
do not propose to defend at any length the missionaries against the 
attacks levelled at them. Fearing lest their honour should be affected 
by unanswered calumnies, they have defended themselves so conclu¬ 
sively, that the members of the Commission of Inquiry must to-day 
regret that portion of their report. The missionaries have shown, 
in effect: 

That the scholastic establishments do not violate either the spirit 
or the text of the law; that the young married scholars are not 
separated from their wives; that the adult scholars are not kept in 
the missions by force; that the scholars are not ill-treated—we can¬ 
not call ill-treatment the paternal application of slight corporal 
chastisement (ironical laughter on the extreme left), when in 
England, to cite only one example, this means of correction is still 

* Yes, in the above passage so ingeniously transposed by the honourable 
member! It was a Catholic, not a Protestant Commission. 

f M. Verhaegen would be hard put to it to produce reliable data to sub¬ 
stantiate this assertion. Moreover, as the Protestant missionaries—be they 
all that the Hon. Member considers—are now proved to have spolcen the absolute 
truth, the Hon. Member would have exhibited a modicum of Christian charity 
in acknowledging the fact. 

f The Swiss member of the Commission of Inquiry. 




46 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

employed in all the schools of the country, and that the interested 
parties themselves do not protest against the practice. The mis¬ 
sionaries have also demonstrated that the natives inhabiting the 
Chapel farms are not kept under strict tutelage; that the natives 
who have left the missionary schools possess their tools in their own 
right, and that the produce of their plantations and their poultry 
belongs to them; that those who are protected by the missionaries 
receive, when of age, the authority to marry; that it is odious to 
assert that the object of the missionaries is to obtain abundant 
labour—this is the worst of the charges—and that the philanthropic 
objects aimed at are thus gravely compromised. Finally, they have 
shown that the wise rules which the members of the Commission of 
Inquiry traced out for themselves, were not observed by them in 
regard to the Catholic missionaries. Not a single one of the charges 
formulated by the Commission of Inquiry against the missionaries 
remains. It is true that a few days ago, a new accuser arose, M. 
Felicien Cattier, in his book on the situation of the Congo State, 
reproaching the Catholic missionaries, in a passage which I shall 
read fully to the House:— 

“ It is from a higher point of view that the missionaries must be judged. 
For thirteen years they have seen applied around them, with all its consequencies, 
the system of the labour tax. They have seen the population decimated; they 
have assisted, impassive, at the burning and pillage of villages. They have 
held their pjeace, and have only had during this long period, praises for the 
State. Their newspapers only published panegyrics of the Sovereign King, 

* victorious ’ replies to the calumnies of Protestant missionaries. For this 
error there is no excuse.” 

This act of accusation falls into two parts 

1. The missionaries witnessed abuses committed by the State, 
and held their peace. 

2. Their newspapers published nothing but panegyrics of the 
Sovereign King, until the Report of the Commission appeared. 

Let us examine, gentlemen, these two complaints. Up to the present, 
one missionary only has publicly replied to M. Cattier—I think he 
did so in the name of all those there—Monsignor Roelens, Bishop of 
Djerba, Apostolic Vicar of the Upper Congo, of the Order of the 
AVhite Fathers of Africa. He published a letter, which you can 
find in the Bien Public of the 16th February last, and from which 
I will make the following extracts. The quotation, gentlemen, is 
somewhat lengthy, but it is a very interesting one, and as the ques¬ 
tion at issue is the civilisation of the Congo, I hope that the House 
will allow me to read it in extenso. Monsignor Roelens is, moreover, 
a most attractive personality; son of a gardener in Western Flan¬ 
ders, he has acquired special authority by his long sojourn in the 
Congo, by his extensive experience and knowledge of the people 
and things of that country. He has sacrificed his health in the 
Congo, and has become an old man before his time. He deserves 
the respect and the admiration of all humanitarians:— 

“ Be good enough to glance,” says Monsignor Roelens, “ at the map of the 
Congo, and you will see that where exploitation is carried on excessively, in the 
districts visited by the Commission of Inquiry, there are no Catholic Missions. 
The agents have kept to their secret instructions, and have abstained from all 
violence in the proximity of the Catholic Missions. The Catholic missionaries 
have not been, the ocular witnesses of grave abuses. Abuses of a minor 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


47 


importance, which they have seen, they have brought to the attention of the 
Government, and often the latter took note of their complaints. ‘ But,’ it will 
be said, ‘ did not the missionaries know the grave abuses of which to-day the 
agents of the Congo State are accused? ’ If there were not here, in this country, 
newspapers, railways, commercial relations, would one know the crimes com¬ 
mitted at Orleans, Bordeaux, or Marseilles? Even to-day, does one know in 
Brussels all the crimes committed in London? Now, in the Congo, there is no 
connection between the various districts. During my fourteen years’ stay in the 
Congo, I have never known what took place outside my sphere, save through 
the European newspapers. The missionaries did not see committed around 
them grave abuses. A few rumours which they had heard from various sources 
seemed to them, in comparison with what they saw themselves, so untrue, that 
the vehement charges brought by the English against their Belgian compatriots 
caused them indignation. Those who protested said what they had seen, and 
what they were assured was the case. The Protestant missionaries have taken 
upon themselves to study the country rather than to convert its inhabitants. 
They have penetrated into all the regions where produce is being exploited. 
The interests of their cause led them to undertake therein veritable enquiries. 
The agents of the State did not dare to oppose this, because the mot d’ordre is, 
4 Give way to the Englishmen.’* If a Belgian missionary had wished to pene¬ 
trate into these areas, he would have been quickly stopped. If he had allowed 
himself to make an enquiry into the acts of officials, he would have beeen expelled, 
and all the anti-Catholic Press would have shouted in chorus against clerical 
interference. The Catholic missionaries not having seen the abuses in question, 
it was impossible for them to verify their existence. Would M. Cattier have 
wished to see the missionaries distribute amongst the public, accusations of 
abuses which they had not witnessed, and which it was impossible for them to 
control? We should not be asked so much as that! We prefer to leave such a 
proceeding to the Commission of Inquiry, and to M. Cattier. The latter, more¬ 
over, forgets what he wrote in his preface. ‘ Whoever,’ he said, ‘ had asserted 
a year ago a tenth part of the facts which to-day are definitely established, 
would have been prosecuted. He would have found himself in the position of 
being unable to prove his charges, and his judges would have condemned him. 
M. Cattier would have been the first to condemn a missionary who would have 
been so bold as to do so, and he would have been right.” f 


* The ludicrous inaccuracy of this statement may be estimated from the fact 
that both the English and the American Missions have been refused any exten¬ 
sion of their sites by the Congo Government. Fifty-two Evangelical mission¬ 
aries, representing all the Evangelical Missions in the Congo, and including 
representatives of Great Britain, Canada, United States, Sweden, Germany, 
Norway and Denmark, passed a collective protest on the 11th January of this 
year, in which the following paragraph appears:— 

“ We also emphatically protest against the repeated refusal to sell sites for 
mission stations to our Societies, contrary to the provisions of the general act of 
the Conference of Berlin.” 

f I have no wish to do otherwise than to touch very briefly upon the attitude 
of the Catholic missionaries on the Congo. Readers who are acquainted with 
the Congo question, and who have followed the question for the last ten years, 
must judge for themselves as to whether Monsignor Roelens’ defence meets the 
case. I will content myself with saying that Monsignor Roelens’ defence would 
have been stronger were it not for the unfortunate and incontestable fact that, 
while the entire body of Roman Catholic missionaries on the Congo have kept 
silent, whether because, as Monsignor Roelens says, they did not know what was 
going on, or because various circumstances prevented their speaking out. a 
certain number of Catholic missionaries, and some of considerable eminence, 
have gone out of their way to deny facts brought forward by the Protestant 
missionaries, and since confirmed so abundantly and completely by the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry. If, as Monsignor Roelens says, the Catholic missionaries did 
not themselves know that these abuses existed, why did they necessarily con¬ 
clude that their Protestant colleagues, worshippers of the same God as them¬ 
selves, were deliberately committing perjury? Surely the cause of truth and 
righteousness was not served by such an attitude? A case in point is the 
declaration of Monsignor Van Ronsle, Bishop of Thymbrium, Apostolic Vicar 
of the Congo State—in other words, the head of all the Belgian missionaries 
in the Congo. This declaration constitutes the first annex attached to the 
reply of the Congo Government to Mr. Casement’s Report ( Notes sur le 





48 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 


I was led, gentlemen, to try and meet Monsignor Koelens, and to 
ask him if he had witnessed abuses in the Congo. Here is practically 
what he replied to me:—During a stay of fourteen j^ears in the Congo, 
he witnessed one solitary abusive act. He was told that hunger was 
decimating the native carriers between Kassongo and Lake Tangan¬ 
yika, and that they were dying on the road at the rate of ten per cent. 
He at once made an inquiry, and wrote a personal letter to the King- 
Sovereign, in order to gain time, advising the latter to arrange for 
the victualling of the carriers from Kassongo, from the Tanganyika 
side, by the Eastern route. He obtained satisfaction, and the abuse 
was suppressed. On the other hand, the Jesuit Fathers Cus and 
Vanliencxthoven, also Congo missionaries, not having succeeded in 
making themselves heard by the Commission of Inquiry, sent it, 
before the Keport was drawn up, a detailed memorandum, in which 
they delt, inter alia , with the question of native land tenure. Father 
Cus has published in the papers, and M. Vandervelde quoted from it 
the other da}^ a letter which he wrote to M. de Cuvelier* on the 
9tli July, 1905, also an account of a very suggestive conversation 
which he had in June, 1905, with M. Kervyn, a Director in the 
Congo State, concerning the claim of the administration to consider 
as vacant and to seize lands belonging, in point of fact, to the 
natives. From these documents, which, be it noted, are ante¬ 
cedent to the publication of the Report, it appears that the mis¬ 
sionaries have defended with energ}^ the rights and the interests 
of the natives, when they had reason to think that these rights 
and interests were threatened, f M. Cattier, who ignores these facts, 
who has not established contact with the missionaries, has, there- 


Rapport de M. Casement, Consul de sa Majesty Britannique ). The declaration 
is a reply to a series of letters, published in the West African Mail, from the 
Rev. J. H. Weeks, and is an elaborate attempt to explain away the terrible 
data as to depopulation, cruelty, mis-government, and oppression which 
Mr. Weeks has enabled me, from time to time, to place before the world. 
But Mr. Weeks’ charges have since been fully confirmed by the Report of 
the Congo Commission of Inquiry, and the Commissioners concluded that 
he had proved his case. I simply ask this question, and I put it especialy 
to Catholic readers: “ Why did Monsignor Van Ronsle, head of the Belgian 
Catholic missionaries in the Congo, seek to discredit Mr. Weeks in the eyes 
of public opinion, and make himself the echo in his declaration of the stereo¬ 
typed arguments of King Leopold’s Congo Secretaries?’ Mr. Weeks is a 
missionary of standing and repute, of nearly a quarter of a century’s experience 
on the Congo. He is an honest, upright, sterling man. I know him, and would 
go bail for his integrity. He has been proved right; Monsignor Van Ronsle 
has been proved wrong. Another noteworthy fact, in connection with this 
unhappy question, is the circumstance that while, to my knowledge, not a single 
Protestant missionary has attacked the Catholic missionaries in the Upper 
Congo for not speaking out, the Protestant missionaries have been most shame¬ 
fully attacked for years by the Catholic organs in Belgium, and by Catholic 
organs in England and America and other countries, these attacks continuing 
until the appearance of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, a Catholic 
commission, which admitted, and under the circumstances generously admitted, 
the splendid part played by Protestant missionaries on the Congo, a part which 
M. Verhaegen disingeneously attempts to credit to their Catholic brethren. 
Judgment on this painful subject must be left to the verdict of history. 

* Principal Secretary of State to the Congo Government. 

t Father A. Vermeersch’s courageous and remarkable volume, which has 
quite recently appeared, redounds to the honour of the author, and of the 
Belgian Catholic Priesthood. It shows, very clearly, that many Catholic 
missionaries on the Congo knew what was going on, and complained to the 
local authorities. This fact, which is to their credit, increases the peculiarity 
of the attitude of the Roman Priesthood in Europe and in America prior to 
the appearance of the Report of the King’s Commission. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 49 

fore, simply calumniated them, and I am sorry for him. As for 
the newspapers called “ missionary newspapers,” which M. Cattier 
accuses of having published nothing but panegyrics of the Sovereign- 
King, they have praised, and I hope they will continue to praise, 
all which deserves praise on the Congo. Not to recognise the 
grandeur of the royal work; to forget the primitive state of the 
Congo, such as it was described by Livingstone, when the caravan 
routes were strewn with negro skeletons;* to forget the long and 
costly anti-slavery crusade, the suppression of the slave trade, the 
retreat of cannibalism, the construction of the railway, the inter¬ 
diction of alcohol, the establishment of cities which prosper, and 
steamship lines which develop themselves; to forget, especially, 
the opening of the black continent to missionaries, and to civilisa¬ 
tion; not to recognise that this gigantic work deserves the praise 
and gratitude, not only of all men with a heart, but of every 
civilised man, and that it justifies what M. Cattier calls, improperly, 
the panegyrics of the missionaries; is to refuse to recognise facts, 
is to be ungrateful, is to be unjust (applause on the right). More¬ 
over, gentlemen, M. Vandervelde quoted a week ago anything but 
panegyrics of the Sovereign-King, notably when he read to the 
House extracts from the Mouvement des Missions Catholiques au 
Congo. In respect to this review, and the extent to w T hich it may be 
called a missionary review, a point which was brought up, if I am 
not mistaken, by M. A. Daens last Tuesday, I have informed myself, 
and I learn that the review is the work, not of missionaries, but of a 
committee interested in missions. The collaboration of the mission¬ 
aries consists solely in the letters, which are generally signed, which 
they authorise the review to publish. The majority of the mission¬ 
aries, moreover, have their own publications. Thus, the Jesuit 


* As they are now, but on a much larger scale, and with this difference, 
that the bodies are generally thrown into the adjoining bush for the sake 
of appearances. On the Kasango-Kamambarre caravan route, passing through 
the great Manyema country, the stench arising from the dead bodies of carriers 
is so excessive and habitual that the Italian officers have, with grim humour, 
applied to it the special term, “ Manyema perfume.” Let the revelations in the 
Tilkens case be referred to (Belgian debate, 1903), for a similar picture of the 
Great Nile caravan road. In the old days the slaves who perished on the roads 
formed part of convoys, the remnants of which, upon arriving at destination, 
were regarded as assets by their owners, and treated as such. It was horrible, 
but not so horrible as the state of affairs to-day. For the Congo carrier of 
to-day has never finished; not for him is the comparatively joyous life of the 
plantation slave, or the still more easy life (by comparison) of the domestic- 
servant, under the domestic slavery system of the Arab. Obtained by means 
abominably cruel, the slaves of the Arab ivory merchant formed, nevertheless, 
vast areas of cultivation; the Arabs were colonisers; witness the huge centres 
of population they brought into existence—ruthless colonisers, but still colonis¬ 
ers, for they were part of the land, and, had they merely destroyed, they would 
have been making of their own habitation a desert. Theirs was the wealth of 
agricultural produce, of great producing towns. Ivory is all they had in com¬ 
mon, as an asset, with those who have succeeded them. But the wealth of their 
successors lies in obtaining, in the quickest possible time, in the main a single 
product—rubber. They are not attached to the soil. Their object is purely 
mercenary—and for objects far removed from Africa. They do not stand to get 
rich by Africa getting richer; on the contrary, the more they can squeeze out of 
Africa, the greater their profits. With them riches mean Africa’s impoverish¬ 
ment. Hence they do not destroy, to construct under different forms, as did 
the Arab; they merely destroy. The naturally richest part of the Congo terri¬ 
tories, to-day, where the native owns more, is the part where Arab influence 
still prevails; but this part, too, is rapidly sharing the fate of the remainder. 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-4 




50 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Fathers publish the Missions Beiges de la Compagnie de Jesus 
(Congo, Bengal, Ceylon). After having briefly recalled these facts, 
gentlemen, I do not hesitate (however weak may be the authority of 
my testimony) to address to the missionaries the profound homage 
of my admiration: “ Continue in your civilising work, valiant pio¬ 
neers of Christ. You do Belgium honour. Do not let discourage¬ 
ment invade your souls; congratulate yourselves, rather, for attacks 
which will have compelled your few opponents to study closely your 
work. Light is forthcoming, and to every impartial man it will not 
be the Catholic missionaries who will emerge from the inquiry upon 
£he Congo, lessened in the eyes of the world. Such will be, exclu¬ 
sively, certain agents of the State, and of the Companies, guilty of 
abuses which are no longer denied, and which the Minister himself 
has called ‘ grave and regrettable,’ and which the Commission has 
pointed out with a firmness and moderation, and independence of 
character, for which we ought to be very grateful.” 

It is to-day made clear that if the civilisation of the Congo natives 
does not progress; if in many places it seems compromised for a long 
time; if the Protestant missionaries easily find causes for complaints, 
which permit them to decry the Government of the Congo State, and 
enable them to boast of the superior humanity and generosity of 
England; if, in certain regions, the population is going down, instead 
of increasing; if morality around the official stations is worse than 
before the arrival of the white man; the present administration of 
the Congo State has serious things to answer for. I shall be told, 
perhaps, that I exaggerate. I should look upon exaggeration as a 
crime. Profound admirer of the civilising thought which inspired 
the King, admiring his energy and his perserverance, I would sav 
more, admiring his genius—I gave public testimony to my sympa¬ 
thies in the Congo work by signing, a few' years ago, the Bill proposed 
by the Hon. M. Beernaert, relating to the immediate annexation of 
the Congo by Belgium. But I am compelled, as all honest men must 
be compelled, to bow before the evidence of facts:— 

“ The Congo State,” thus it is the Report expresses itself in conclusion, “ owes 
it to itself to introduce as soon as possible the reforms which we have suggested. 

. . . Notably the interpretation of a large and liberal application of the land 

laws, the effective application of the law limiting the labour tax to forty hours 
per month, the suppression of the sentry system, the suppression of the permits 
for the capitas to carry arms, the withdrawal of the right of coercion conferred 
upon the commercial companies, supervision over military expeditions, and the 
freedom of the Judiciary from administrative tutelage.” 

It is not I, gentlemen, who have traced this programme, which con¬ 
stitutes the counterpart of a formidable act of accusation. It is 
sufficient, moreover, to remember the extracts of the Report read to 
the House last week by M. Yandervelde, in order to be convinced that 
the Sovereign of the Congo State is, perhaps, not served at this 
moment as he ought to be. It is not the laws which he has passed 
which are subject to criticism (they form a remarkable legislative 
whole); it is their application which has become bad, tyrannical, 
anti-Christian. 

“ If the legislation had been applied in the spirit in which it was drafted,” 
said, last week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, “this application would have 
resulted in preventing the abuses pointed out by the Commission of Inquiry.”* 

* The abuses are the necessary and inevitable result of the fundamental 
claims of the Congo State to the land and the products of the soil embodied 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 51 

Such is also my opinion. I shall not return, gentlemen, to the 
grave facts brought out in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, 
and which the House knows. I wish to touch on one matter, which 
has not been pointed out by the Commission of Inquiry, but which 
has led to many energetic representations on the part of the mis¬ 
sionaries. 

The State, having undertaken the free transport from one station 
to another of the legitimate wives of the soldiers and workmen 
whom it desires to shift from place to place, found, after a time, 
that the expense was too heavy. The State drew up, therefore, 
alongside the civil marriage recognised by the Code, free unions 
which are foreign to the Code. It is a species of officially-recog¬ 
nised concubinage, but of a temporary duration, and forced, so to 
speak, upon the soldiers and workmen when they arrive at a station. 
When they are removing they are not allowed to take away with 
them the female companions with whom they have lived for a few 
months. Such a regime is the, direct negative of the civilising 
views of the Sovereign-King. It can only contribute to decreasing 
the respect in which regular marriages are held, and in lessening 
their number even among the natives who are most closely amenable 
to State influences—soldiers and workmen. It tends, moreover, to 
compromise gravely the work of civilisation, for a paltry matter of 
money.* * 

Gentlemen, w T hen one has gone to the root of things, one acquires 
the conviction that the Congo State is not served at this moment by 
a sufficiency of competent men, men with high and humanitarian 
views, with civilising tendencies, such as were the servants of the 
State when the King founded it. f I am well aware that neither 
Belgium nor the other signatory Powers of the Act of Berlin has 
the right to interfere in the internal administration of the Congo 
State, and I do not dream of inviting the Government to do so, 
but I am entitled to note what the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
said himself (and in the same terms as he used), that “the Congo, 
watered with our blood, must remain a Belgian work.” But I 
might be allowed to add, “ must remain a work worthy of Bel¬ 
gians.” I am also entitled, basing myself upon the close solidarity 
which exists, in practice, between Belgium and the Congo, to ex¬ 
press publicly the wish that a more generous, a higher and more 

in its legislation. The laws subsequently passed to correct the abuses inherent 
to that legislation are laws for European consumption. The Congo State 
appears in the light of a man, who, having lit a great conflagration, and 
seeing the havoc which that conflagration is causing, but desiring for his own 
purpose that the conflagration itself shall be maintained, sits at a table, at a 
convenient distance from the flames, and drafts a number of pious regulations, 
in which he seeks to remedy the extent of its depredations. 

* More usefully spent, no doubt, in the “ civilising views of the Sovereign- 
King,” in subsidising newspapers and public men, paying commissions on 
rubber to officials, and purchasing material of war. 

f That is true, but why? Because the policy of the State, from its founda¬ 
tion to 1890, was professedly humanitarian, and King Leopold surrounded 
himself at that time with men of high calibre, belonging to various countries. 
But from 1890 onwards, the King’s policy was seen with increasing clearness 
to be a policy of mere pillage, and such a policy could only be carried out by 
men of an inferior type. 



52 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Christian, a more worthy inspiration of Belgium and its King, and, 
to sum up, a more humane inspiration, should henceforth be ap¬ 
plied to the Congo administration. It has been sought to reply 
to the reproaches addressed to the Congo State, by pointing out 
that other Powers, and, in particular, France and England, treat 
the natives of their Colonies even worse. This, gentlemen, is a 
detestable argument. Even if this were so, the Congo State owes 
it to itself, if it wishes to maintain the sympathies of Belgians, 
and that is a very important matter for it, not to imitate the bad 
examples of others, and to act paternally towards beings who, if 
they are black and barbarians, are none the less men like us, and 
our brethern. I fear much (I see it with sorrow) that Belgian 
public opinion, which has become so favourable to the great work 
of the King, will end by turning away from it, if the Congo State 
does not make up its mind to treat the natives as they are treated 
with so much success by the missionaries, and if it does not seek 
to raise them morally as well as materially. Finally, this is what 
I ask, and this is the measure in which I associate myself with 
the proposals of M. Vandervelde. I note that the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs sent the Report of the Congo Commission of 
Inquiry to all the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, thus 
placing under the eyes of numerous Governments the grave charges 
against Belgian citizens, who have the right to its protection. 
Their position as Christian Missionaries assures special pro¬ 
tection to them, by virtue of Article 6 of the Act of Berlin. If 
it be true that the Minister, or his Department, has forwarded 
this document, he will kindly say so. But, in that case, he will 
no doubt take in hand—unless he has done so already, which I 
should learn with great satisfaction—“ the essential interests ” of 
Belgian subjects—to quote once again the expression of the Duke of 
Wellington; and he will, perhaps, be good enough to ask the Congo 
State to dissipate the bad impression which may have been produced 
upon these Powers through the unjust criticisms formulated against 
the missionaries by the Commission of Inquiry. That is a duty 
which appears to me to be demanded by a care for our national 
honour, and I invite the attention of the House to it. Do we not 
see, when the essential interests of an Englishman are jeopardised 
by any Power, that England immediately takes his part, and exacts 
reparation? Do not all States act in the same way? Why should 
not Belgium also fulfil this duty? The honour of the missionaries, 
their professional honour, has been gravely affected by the Report 
of the Commission, a Report demanded by the Congo State, 
published by it, and despatched to the Powers. I do not formally 
propose any method whereby satisfaction may be granted. I 
suggest, however, the following method, which to some extent 
explains itself. M. Vandervelde asked the House that all the 
evidence, and all the documents, cbllected by the Commission of 
Inquiry, should be published, and placed in the hands of members. 
For my part, I look upon this publication as useless, in regard to the 
accusations of the Report, which no one disputes—that is to say, its 
conclusions relating to the Congo State itself. But the case is not 
the same in regard to the conclusions relating to the missionaries, 
and I should see with much satisfaction the Minister asking the 
Congo State to publish the documents and evidence produced on the 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 5H 

subject of Catholic missionaries and missions. I think I can guar¬ 
antee to him that this measure will not be opposed by the interested 
parties, and that it would not be necessary, in such a publication, 
to suppress any names! The missionaries demand proudly that full 
and complete light shall be thrown upon their actions and their work. 
These documents, and this evidence, accompanied by the reply which 
the missionaries might be asked to make to them, should then be 
transmitted to the Powers as a sequel to the Report, in order to allow 
them to judge of the worth of the complaints made against the mis¬ 
sionaries. I repeat, I do not make this a formal proposal. I throw 
out the suggestion, and I should feel satisfied with an}^ other means 
which the Minister might adopt, to obtain from the Congo State the 
reparation due to Belgian citizens, unjustly accused through that 
State. If the Minister is unable to grant me satisfaction, or rather 
to grant the missionaries satisfaction, I should probably be compelled 
to put forward a resolution, and to beg the House to vote it, and to 
take in hand itself the interests of Belgian citizens, who uphold the 
flag of our national honour on the Congo. I associate myself with 
the demand of *M. Vandervelde to see the House placed in a position 
to discuss before long the Bill of the 7th August, 1901, on the gov¬ 
ernment of the future Colonial possessions of Belgium. I associate 
myself with this demand on the grounds mentioned by M. Vander¬ 
velde. I cannot at present, however, endorse his proposal to see 
“ the House name a Commission, instructed to make an inquiry on 
the financial consequences which might result for Belgium through 
the ultimate annexation of the Congo.” Such an inquiry appears 
to me premature. It would, no doubt, be necessary when the ques¬ 
tion of taking over the Congo is re-opened, and we should then have 
to study the financial situation of the Colony. 

M. Lorand:— If this eventuality were produced by the death of 
the King, you would not have the time to proceed. 

M. Verhaegen:— But we should take the time, my dear colleague. 

M. Lorand :—How ? Where will you find a stipulation analogous 
to that of the civil code, which would assure us even three months 
to make an inventory, and forty days to deliberate on it? 

M. Vandervelde:— This Commission of Inquiry would have, obvi¬ 
ously, to go to the Congo. How is it possible that it should do so in 
the event which I pointed out, and which M. Lorand has recalled? 

M. Verhaegen : — I cannot examine at this moment what duties 
would have to be fulfilled by this Commission, but I confine myself 
to quoting a part of your proposal, and placing myself from the one 
point of view of the financial consequences which might result for 
us from the annexation of the Congo. When the question crops up, 
we shall have the time to examine it, and we will take the time. 

M. Allard:—N o, no. 

M. Lorand:— We should certainly not have the time. We should 
be told that the sovereignty of the Congo cannot remain uncertain, 
or provisional, and that it has to be taken or left. 

M. Verhaegen : — Make your mind, easy, my dear colleague; you 
will find no one in this part of the House to do what is vulgarly 
called in Flanders, “ buy a cat in a bag.” What I ask the Govern¬ 
ment finally is to invite, in a friendly way, the Congo State to com¬ 
municate to the signatory Powers of the Act of Berlin, the resolu¬ 
tions which will shortly be taken, if I am well informed, by the 


54 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 

Commission instructed to point out the reforms to be accomplished 
in the Congo. I hope, also, that the members of the House will 
receive the text of these resolutions. I express this hope because 
I do not share the suspicions of M. Vandervelde towards the Com¬ 
mission for Reforms. I am convinced that these resolutions will 
be characterised by generosity, by a real Belgian spirit, and by a 
strong reforming zeal. I hope that the Congo State will profit by 
the salutary humiliation which has been inflicted, upon its. admin¬ 
istration by the Commission of Inquiry*, and will deem its own 
honour involved in putting a stop to all the abuses which have been 
pointed out. If, officially, we are not called upon to trouble our¬ 
selves about, nor to answer for the treatment inflicted upon the 
natives of the Congo, our honour, and the good name of Belgium, is 
interested in a country governed by our King, and administered to 
a great extent by Belgians, and that it must be worthy of the 
esteem and the confidence of civilised humanity (applause on various 
benches). 

The Speaker : — M. Bertrand is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. BERTRAND. 

M. Bertrand:— Gentlemen, the Congo State can, obviously, be 
looked upon from a dual point of view; the moral point of view, 
and the economic and financial point of view. My hon. friend, 
M. Vandervelde, was principally concerned, in his speech of last 
Tuesday, with the moral side of this enterprise. I should like to 
insist, briefly, on the financial question. But, before doing so, I wish 
to refer in a few words to the attitude of the Belgian Minister in this 
matter, and then to the system which, in my opinion, would be most 
favourable to apply in the Congo. Last Tuesday, after the speech 
made in such moderate terms by my friend Vandervelde, we heard a 
discourse which had been prepared in advance, and which was read to 
us by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This discourse was in bad 
form, and exaggerated. What did the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
tell us, and what have the other Ministers of the King told us before? 
That my friends, Vandervelde. Lorand, and the others were to be 
looked upon with suspicion? Why? Because we are Republicans, 
and have fought the Congo enterprise from the beginning. This is 
absolutely false. My friends and myself have only been moved by 
feelings of pity for the natives. But what is the use of insisting 
upon this? M. de Favereau, in defending, by order, the Congo 
system, was embarrassed, and he brought forward no serious argu¬ 
ments to defend it,.but confined himself to insinuating things against 
my friend Vandervelde. But I do not think he succeeded. I admit 
that for ten years the present Ministers have pretty well succeeded 
in influencing public opinion in their favour, as regards the Congo 
enterprise. They declared that the Socialists were fighting this 
enterprise because they were Republicans, and enemies of the King. 
They declared that we were acting for Liverpool merchants; that 
we wished to help foreigners against a Belgian work. But, gentle¬ 
men, everything has its limits, and to-day the Congo system, whose 
praises the Belgian Ministry have not ceased to sing, is condemned 
not only by us Socialists and Liberals, but by the Catholic Press, by 
Catholic missionaries, and, in the speech to which you have just lis- 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 55 

tened, M. Verhaegen criticised this enterprise, and demanded, as we 
demand, that serious reforms should be introduced into the present 
organisation of the Congo State. Listen to what some clerical organs 
say. This is Avhat Le Patriote* said only a few days ago:— 

“ What made M. Vandervelde’s interpellation necessary? The system of 
brigandage installed in the Congo by the Congo State, a system denounced for 
twelve years by Le Patriote , a system of which the infamies have been pointed 
out by the Commission of Inquiry named by the King. Italy has refused to 
accept any longer her part of the responsibility, through her officers in those 
regions. It has been said, both for the honour of the Italian nation and for 
the respect which the Italian army owes to itself, not even an officer on 16ave 
will be authorised, in future, to take service in the Congo. England, backed 
by Germany,t compelled the Sovereign of the Congo State to bring about an 
inquiry, and the Commission -appointed by the Sovereign-King has adopted 
nearly all the charges of the English missionaries whom the Congo State 
instructed its Press to denounce, as abominable calumniators, as pioneers of a 
campaign of defamation, in order to ensure the annexation of the Congo by 
England. These facts dominate the controversy; they destroy all the tactics 
of M. de Favereau during the last ten years.” 

Why, we have never been so violent as that! Le Bien Public , 
which had never attacked the Congo, which had, on the contrary, 
defended it, published the following words in November last, after 
the publication of the Report of the Commission named by the Gov¬ 
ernment :— 

“ When it is a matter of charges brought against the State, the Commission 
is much more reserved. It does not receive them without examining them, 
without pleading extenuating circumstances, without attempting to weaken the 
value of the weight of evidence, and this is precisely what gives to the conclu¬ 
sions of its report, as regards the administration of the country, an excep¬ 
tional gravity. The abuses which exist in the State are such that, notwith¬ 
standing its appearance of special pleading, the Report constitutes the most 
crushing indictment which has been formulated hitherto against the agents of 
the State. It is outrageous that, after this, an attempt should be made to 
invert the parts, and to place on the bench of the accused, not the State, but 
the missionaries, whom no one has attacked until to-day. We shall defend the 
missionaries, human dignity, and the natural rights of the natives, and of 
religious truth. Now, the system actually prevailing in the Congo—we do not 
speak of the laws and decrees, but of the way in which these laws and decrees 
are applied—the actual system on the Congo is the primary obstacle to the 
uplifting of the native.” 

On their part, the Catholic missionaries, and the publications 
which represent the Catholic missions, have been equally emphatic, 
far more violent, certainly, than was M. Vandervelde a week ago in 
this House, and this, gentlemen, is what is called a “ campaign of 
calumny,” which for years we have been accused of carrying on. 
To-day"the so-called calumniators are legion. 

Now, a word as to the system of exploitation prevailing in the 
Congo. The history of colonial policy on the Congo is divided 
into three parts: the first period, from 1885 to 1891, may be called 
the Liberal period; the second period, from 1891 to 1901, can 
be called the fiscal period; and after that Ave find the Monopolist 
period. The capitalistic world prefers, before all, the Liberal 
system, that of commercial liberty. This system can be defined 
as follows: the country pays all the cost of the enterprise, and 
financial and commercial Companies reap millions. All sacrifices 

* Le Patriote is not a religious organ, but an organ of the Party in the 
State known by the somewhat misleading epithet of “ Clerical Party.” It has, 
I am told, the largest circulation of any paper in Belgium. 

t This is inaccurate. 




56 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


are to be made by the metropolis for the benefit of a few dozen 
people, who rapidly get wealthy, to the detriment of their fellow- 
countrymen, and to the detriment of the natives, whom they often 
odiously exploit.* We, gentlemen, are the adversaries of this 
system. The second system consists in making the State owner 
of a portion of its domain, which it exploits for its profit, leaving 
the remainder to private people. This is what took place in the 
Congo from 1891 to 1901. Finally, gentlemen, the Congo has 
been exploited in later years after the system wdiich is called 
the • “ collectivist system.” The collectivism which we preach, we 
Socialists, is a collectivism working to benefit the nation—that is 
to say, all the citizens who compose it. That which is in opera¬ 
tion in the Congo is for the profit of one man, the Sovereign-King. 

It reposes upon the * exploitation of the natives, and the Belgian 

taxpayer. In practice it is carried out as follows. The greater 

portion of the territory belongs to the Congo State, and to the 
Sovereign personally, both being one. It is a collective property, 
which has been formed by the brutal expropriation of the collective 
property of the natives, which was in existence for centuries. 
Another part of the territory has been handed over to Concession¬ 
aire Companies, who exploit it in the name of the Congo State, 
and who divide the profits with the 1 after, even to the extent of 
one-half. Finally, a very small part of the territory is left free to 
Companies, or to native owners. I cannot criticise, personally, 
colonial exploitation for the profit of the State. It ought to mean 
the development of the country for the benefit of the natives, and 
with their help the State, as exploiter, might, in my opinion, be 
much more humane than the Companies. However, the Congo 
State, as the Commission of Inquiry points out, has exploited the 
natives, in a literal sense, for purposes of gain. It has employed 
the most odious means, and the money thus acquired, instead 
of serving the Colony, has been squandered in Belgium. The 
principle of State exploitation is not criticisable, but the means 
employed have been obviously disgraceful, f It is a singular thing, 
gentlemen, that the most emphatic adversaries of the system of the 
monopoly system in Belgium, our Ministers at the head of them, 
declare themselves, so far as the Congo is concerned, the devoted 
upholders of a system of State exploitation. In Belgium, free 
monopolies have been granted to private companies. It is thus that 
private companies have been granted the monopoly of the National 
Bank, certain railways, the monopoly of coal mines, tramways, 
etc., whereas in the Congo the contrary system is defended. There 
we find a large domain, exploited by the State, is justified: and 
it is considered excellent that the administration of the Congo State 
should pocket half the profits realised by the Concessionnaire Com¬ 
panies. How can this contradiction be explained? It can only 

* It would be difficult to crowd a greater number of inaccuracies into a 
single sentence. The weakness of many Socialist critics lies precisely here, that 
they have not studied and do not comprehend either the problems, the neces¬ 
sities, duties, or responsibilities of colonial action in tropical dependencies. 

f In what sense can the Congo enterprise be called a “ State,” when the 
citizens of that State, e. g., the natives of the country, have not only no voice 
in the management of its affairs, but have been robbed of everything which 
constitutes citizenship even in primitive communities? 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 57 

be explained by concluding that the Belgian Ministers are more 
devoted to the King than to the Belgian State; that they understand 
perfectly well what is profitable to the King; but that they do not 
wish anything of the kind for Belgium, whose interests they com¬ 
promise to benefit the capitalist classes. I bring my remarks on 
this point to a conclusion by putting the following question: Why 
do you refuse, you Belgian Ministers, to apply in Belgium the 
regime of State ownership which you defend in the Congo for the 
benefit of the Sovereign-King ? Why do you refuse to apply the 
system, which concedes certain enterprises to private Companies, 
with State participation in the profits? In a few days you will 
have the opportunity, when we discuss the system to be adopted 
for working the Campine Mines, to show us why you do not recognise 
in Belgium a system which you find good on the Congo. 

Gentlemen I will now deal with the chief point I wish to touch 
upon, namely, the financial consequences which may accrue to Bel¬ 
gium through the system at present existing in the Congo State. 
At the beginning, in 1885, when for the first time the question of 
giving to the King of the Belgians the title of Sovereign of the 
Congo State was discussed in the House and the country, very 
solemn promises were made to us. The Congo, it was then said, 
would never cost Belgium anything, and would be very profitable 
to Belgium. A few years later, in 1890, the question of a direct 
pecuniary intervention of the Belgian Treasury, on behalf of the 
Congo State, was mooted. Belgium advanced the Congo State 25 
million francs, without interest, a sum which was to be paid at the 
rate of five millions in 1890, then two millions per annum for ten 
years. In 1896 a new loan of 6^ millions was granted by Belgium 
to the Congo State. In 1891, on the strength of the Convention 
concluded between the Congo State and Belgium, when the loan 
of 25 millions in 1890 was contracted, we were in the position of 
being able to take over the Congo or wait, and it was stipulated 
in the Convention, drafted by M. Beernaert, that in case the Congo 
was not taken over in 1891, Belgium could exact interest on the 
capital advanced by her, which would have amounted to 1,000,000 
francs per annum. I had the honour of interpellating the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer on the 28th February, 1905, exactly a year 
ago, on the responsibilities which might accrue to Belgium through 
the financial situation of the Congo. In the course of that interpel¬ 
lation, I dwelt especially on the danger in which Belgium was in¬ 
volved, in respect to the Congo State, from the financial point of 
view. It is not open to question that the Congo State is becoming 
very seriously indebted. Since it became free to borrow without 
control, and without authority from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
it has undertaken several loans for several millions. These millions 
have not been spent in the Congo, to develop the country, and to 
improve the lot of the natives; but they have been spent in Belgium, 
and have been utilised in executing sumptuous works, and in 
buying real estate. That was the theme of mv speech a year ago. 
What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is also the Prime 
Minister, reply to me on that occasion? He accused me, as usual, 
of exaggerating to make my own case good, or of having been mis¬ 
taken, or of trifling with figures. Now, all that I affirmed a year 


58 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

ago is verified to-day by the data contained in M. Cattier’s book. 
This is how M. Cattier criticises the action of the Congo State:— 

“ To escape all control,” he says, “ that is the desire of the financial depart¬ 
ment of the Congo State. The details which are furnished help to dissimulate 
truth, rather than make it appear.” 

That is precisely the position. In the Bulletins Officiel of the 
Congo State, the Congo State’s Budget is published, but hitherto 
the Congo State has never published a single account. Now, what does, 
this Budget contain? Nothing but mere estimates. One cannot 
arrive at an estimate of the real condition of the finances of a State 
until its accounts have been published, because only when that is done 
can one ascertain if the estimates of receipts and expenditure have 
been realised or not, and to what extent.* Now, although the Congo 
State has published a Budget every year for the last fifteen years, up 
to now not a single official publication has ever been made of the ac¬ 
counts of the State, and it is indispensable that this should be done. 
The financial history of the State falls into three distinct periods. 
The first is the period which M. Cattier calls the period of prudence, 
as from 1885 to 1890; the second is the period of tutelage, as a conse¬ 
quence of the Convention drafted by the House in 1890; the third is 
the period of wastefulness. During the first period, the main idea 
was not to create an onerous situation for Belgium, in case of annexa¬ 
tion. Thus, the loan of 1888, on the lottery system, was organised in 
such a way as not to cost the Treasury of the Congo State anything, 
for the guaranteed fund is sufficient to insure interest on the 
sinking fund. The second period opened with the Convention of 
the 3rd July, 1890. At this time the Congo State undertook to 
furnish Belgium with all necessary information, and not to contract’ 
any loan without the consent of the Belgian Government. This 
Convention held good until 1891. What took place then? Hardly 
was the Convention signed, hardly had. the pledges been under¬ 
taken, than the Congo State violated them by contracting a loan in 
secret with M. de Browne de Tiege, and it was only in 1896 that the 
House and the country were informed of this infringement of the 
State’s undertakings. One fine day the Congo State, wanting money 
to reimburse M. de Browne Tiege, came to Belgium, and obtained, 
by a law voted by the majority of this House, a credit of 5,000,000 
francs, to reimburse M. de Browne de Tiege, and another credit of 
a million and a half to make good certain deficits in the Budget of 
the current year. Once more, then, it was Belgium that paid! We 
now arrive at the third period. The latter is characterised, first of 
all, by a loan of 50 millions at four per cent., made by virtue of a 
Decree of the Sovereign-King, dated 15th October, 1901. This loan 
was contracted, I must add, after the Congo State found itself freed 
from the control of Belgium, and able to borrow without the author¬ 
ity of the Belgian Government. Two years and a half later, in 
February, 1904, a new Decree qf the Sovereign-King was issued, 
authorising the Congo State to contract a new loan of 30 millions, at 
three per cent., that is to say, in less than two years and a half from 

* In Father Vermeersch’s book will be found tables, showing that in the 
last two years, the net revenues of the State (including the Domaine de la 
Couronne) have produced, out of rubber and ivory alone, £1,000.000 sterling 
in excess of the estimates.—Fide Congo Reform Association’s May organ. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 59 

the time the Congo State obtained its financial liberty, from the time 
that it Avas no longer subjected to the control of this House, from the 
time that it had no longer to obtain the authorisation of the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer to contract loans; in tAvo years and a half 
this State borroAvs a sum of 80 millions. But this is not all. In 
1901 the same State incurred an indirect debt of 25 millions. At that 
time there A\ T as constituted in Belgium the Great Lakes Railway, 
thanks to a concession granted by the Congo State to M. Empain * 
and others. The capital Avas 25 millions. The Congo State guaran¬ 
teed, during a great number of years, a minimum of interest to this 
Company at four per cent. I may mention, in parenthesis, that two 
members of this House, on the benches of the Right, are adminis¬ 
trators of this Company. We must, therefore, add this indirect debt 
of 25 millions to the 80 millions borroAA'ed on the strength of the 
decrees of the King-SoA^ereign. I may mention, in passing, that 
Belgium guaranteed to this 1904 loan, a minimum interest of four 
per cent., Avhereas Belgium borroAvs herself at three per cent.f More¬ 
over, the loan of three per cent., concluded in 1904, Avas taken by a 
syndicate of Belgian bankers at the price of 72 francs per 100 francs 
share. \ The consequence of this is that Belgium will have to reim¬ 
burse 100 francs per share, when, in point of fact, the Congo State 
will have received for these shares only 72 francs per share. It would 
seem from this, either that the bankers have very little confidence in 
the Congo State, or that they determined to make the best of a given 
situation for their own benefit. 

Gentlemen, I Avas saying a moment ago that the Congo State pub¬ 
lished each year in its Bulletin Officiel, the Budget for the folloAving 
year, but that it has never published its annual accounts. It is, 
therefore, very difficult to know exactly, from a financial point of 
vieAv, what is the true situation of the Congo State, to know pre¬ 
cisely the actual figure of this debt. The number of shares issued on 
the loans contracted cannot be obtained Avithout elaborate calcula¬ 
tion. By taking into account the figures inscribed in the Budget of 
the State, for the annual interest on the current loans, my friend 
VanderA r elde, a Aveek ago, basing himself upon data in M. Cattier’s 
book, declared that the debt of the Congo State amounted to 108 
millions. M. de Favereau said that this figure Avas false. Asked to 
state Avhat. the real figure was, he Avas compelled to state that he did 
not know it! Now it seems to me, gentlemen, that Avhen one man 
states that a figure quoted by another man is false, he should knoAv 
the exact figure. M. de Favereau did not knoAv it. How then can 
Ave explain the attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs? My 
friend Vandervelde, Avho is sitting by me, has just told me that the 
Minister merely repeated Avhat he had been told to do. Such a role 
is a very pitiful one for a Belgian Minister (laughter on the benches 
of the extreme left). 

* A banker, on terms of intimacy with the King. 

f This is either a stenographic error, or the speaker means that, in case of 
annexation, Belgium will have to pay four per cent, on this money, it being 
obvious, of course, that it was not Belgium, but the Congo State, which guar¬ 
anteed the interest. 

t This is not quite correct. It appears that a portion of the three per cent, 
loan was taken up at par, but that another portion was taken up, as the speaker 
says, at 28 per cent, discount. 




60 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 


M. Lorand:— It was obvious that he was repeating. 

M. Bertrand:— Let us examine, then, the financial condition of 
the Congo State, according to the figures published by itself in the 
last fifteen years. From 1891 to 1905, a period of fifteen years, the 
total revenue is given at 250 millions. The same official document 
declares that the ordinary expenditure in that period amounted to 
252 millions, or a deficit of two millions only, to which is added 
a deficit of 25 millions for extraordinary expenditure within this 
period. But, gentlemen, amongst the ordinary receipts of the Congo 
State since 1891, I have not seen included the five millions paid on 
the strength of the Convention of 1901, although the two millions 
annually paid for the ten following years do figure in the revenue 
returns. Similarly, the sum of 6^ millions paid by Belgium in 1896 
to the Congo State does not figure in any of the revenue returns 
of that State. If we add the ordinary and extraordinary deficits 
together, we find an alleged deficit of 27 millions within this period. 
But from this must be deducted, it seems to me, first the 5 millions in 
1896, and then the 6J millions paid by Belgium in 1896, which are not 
included in the revenues. Finally, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
in his speech of Tuesday last, declared that of the loan on the lottery 
system of 1888, of 150 million francs, the Congo State had only cashed 
from 7 to 8 millions. We must, therefore, add these 8 millions on 
the one hand to the 5 millions in 1890, and to the 6J millions in 
1896, which makes a total of 19^ millions, which reduces the real 
deficit to less than 8 millions. But from 1890 to 1900, the Congo 
State, authorised by the Belgian Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
contracted other loans. There is a loan of 1^ millions in 1896, 
then another of 12^ millions in 1898, which makes 14 millions, 
to cover a deficit of 8 millions. The financial situation, so far as 
we can judge of it by the Budgets published by the Congo State, 
may be considered as excellent, and this notwithstanding that 
since 1901 the Congo State, being free, has contracted two loans, 
the first a loan of 50 millions, and another loan of 30 millions, 
making altogether a total of 80 millions. Gentlemen, when I inter¬ 
pellated, in February, 1905, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
replying to the figures I have just quoted, declared that of the 
80 millions which the Congo State had been authorised to borrow, 
the Congo State had 'only received 41 millions. M. Cattier, on 
the other hand, asserts that the real debt is one of 80 millions. 
A year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, merely asserted the 
above, without giving any proof, or without giving any details in 
support of his statement. M. Cattier, on the other hand, in order 
to arrive at the figure of 80 millions, which he gives in his book, 
calculates the amount of this debt according to the yearly figures 
given in the Budgets. Now, gentlemen, the following are the 
figures taken from official documents of the State:—From 1893 
to 1896, an annuity of 30,000 francs was set aside for the public 
debt :— 


In 1897 


70,000 francs. 


„ 1899 
., 1901 
„ 1902 
„ 1904 
„ 1905 


495,000 

020,000 

1,872,000 

2,150,000 

2,922,000 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 61 

Therefore, in a few years the annual charge on the Congo State’s 
debt has risen from 30,000 to 2,922,000 francs. Some of the loans 
contracted by the Congo State bring in three per cent., others four 
per cent. The annuity of 2,922,000 represents, therefore, a debt 
of 80 million francs, in round figures, and not 41 millions, according 
to the sum quoted here a year ago by the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer. I have checked the figures of M. Cattier from the 
Bulletins Officiel of the Congo State, and I must say that the 
figure fixing the debt at 80 millions is based upon very solid ground¬ 
work, whereas the figure furnished a year ago by the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer reposes upon nothing. Gentlemen, it is advis¬ 
able that we should know the truth on the subject, in view of the 
situation in which Belgium will find herself if she takes over the 
Congo. For a long time the Congo State has owed us 31,000,000 
francs, advanced without interest. Any day we may be called upon 
to take over the Congo, yet we are ignorant of the amount of its 
debt. Is not this astonishing? This debj: amounts, without count¬ 
ing the 31 millions lent by Belgium, to 41 millions, according to 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to 80 millions, according to M. 
Cattier. 

One thing is certain—these millions have not been used to 
develop the Colony, and improve the lot of the natives. Quite 
the contrary. Rapidly borrowed, they have served in a great part 
for sumptuous unproductive expenses. They have been utilised 
for the construction of the monumental arcade, which may be very 
fine, but which ought not to be paid for indirectly by Belgium, 
which will ultimately be the case. They have also been utilised in 
work undertaken on the Laeken Palace, which may cost 30 millions, 
according to the figure given here by M. Liebaert, notwithstanding 
that this Palace is not lived in at all for three parts of the year. 
They have been utilised in erecting a very costly Colonial Palace 
at Tervueren; they have been employed in constructing public 
works, and buying real estate at Ostend, Brussels, in the South of 
France, and elsewhere. They have also been utilised in the con¬ 
struction of the Japanese Tower, which you may have seen at 
Laeken, and in the construction of a Chinese restaurant. Is it 
not idiotic to devote to such uses these millions, borrowed by the 
Congo State, which we ourselves will have to pay back, possibly 
before very long?* You should know also, gentlemen, that the 
contracts for these Public Works are given out without any tenders 
being invited, at fabulous prices, which are often paid in part 
with Congo bonds. 

Gentlemen, this is the truth on the Congolese finances. A year 
ago, M. de Smet de Naeyer said that the debt of the Congo State 
amounted to 41 millions. Since then it has increased very rapidly, 
and it can without exaggeration be said to amount to-day to 
80 millions, to which must be added the 31 millions representing 
the money advanced by Belgium without any interest. The Con¬ 
vention of 1890 placed a weapon in the hands of the Belgian 

* Is it not infamous that civilisation should stand aside with folded arms 
while King Leopold is enslaving, murdering, and torturing the natives of 
the Congo, in order to obtain the wherewithal to curry popularity in 
Belgium, by giving orders to contractors to build Chinese restaurants? 




62 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Government. It was framed by M. Beernaert, and contained 
precious guarantees for our country. In 1901, Belgium might take 
over the Congo, or make a new Convention, maintaining the 
principle of Belgian Government control, and giving us all the 
necessary guarantees, from the point of view of future loans, which 
the Congo State might make. Instead of that, what did the 
Government do? It allowed the date on which we might have 
taken over the Congo, or have established a new Convention, to 
lapse. From that time onwards the King-Sovereign became entirely 
free, and borrowed millions upon millions, which have been used 
in the manner which I have recently indicated- But there is 
more than this even; the Congo State had undertaken in 1890, 
in case Belgium did not annex in 1901, to pay interest at three 
per cent, on the sums advanced to it by Belgium. This interest 
would have amounted to nearly 1,200,000 francs. It has, however, 
not been paid; a present has been made of it to the Sovereign 
of the Congo State, who squanders so many millions. Now, when 
we in this House ask, for instance, that subsidies shall be paid to 
those Communes which distribute food to the children in the 
Schools, the Government replies that it has no money. Yet this 
sum of 1,200,00 francs would enable 100,000 poor children to be 
fed during the winter months. When we ask for increases of salary 
or wages for the smaller clerks in the Government offices, the reply 
is the same—the Government has the money. And yet, in the face 
of this, we make a present of 1,200,000 francs to the Congo State, 
when this sum might be usefully employed in increasing by 
100 francs per annum the salaries of 12,000 clerks, on the railways, 
or any other work. And, gentlemen, if the system operating in the 
Congo is dangerous for our finances, it is more dangerous still 
for Belgium, for it reflects upon our policy as a whole. Under the 
censitaire regime , and this is practised in all countries, even in 
Germany, for example, at the end of every year a solemn opening 
of Parliament took place, with a speech from the throne; the 
Government thought itself compelled to inform the country and 
Parliament of the work it hoped to accomplish in the course of the 
session, and the programme which it reckoned upon submitting to 
the deliberations of Parliament. For the last twelve years there 
has been nothing of all this with us. The House meets without 
drum or fife, like a mere village council. We do not know what 
laws we are going to discuss. From time to time the Government 
brings in a Bill, which is sent to a Commission, and a few days 
afterwards the Bill is voted. There is absolutely no control. The 
Budgets are drafted in such a way that Ministers can shift 
millions from one item to another. They are introduced at the last 
moment; it is never possible to discuss them, and very often personal 
friends of the Ministers are entrusted to draw up the reports. 
How is it possible that, under such conditions, Parliamentary con¬ 
trol can be exercised effectually? In truth the regime , existing in 
the Congo has its counted effect on Belgian policy. When we 
interpellate a Minister, he barely listens to us, and when he deigns 
to answer, he replies on a side issue. Formerly, in the Bugetary dis¬ 
cussions, the Ministers treated the House with loyalty, and thought 
themselves bound to reply point by point to the questions brought 
forward. To-day they reply in a few minutes, or in a very inade- 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIYES. 63 

quate fashion, to the representatives of the nation. The Congo 
system, applied tty the King to his Belgian Ministers, unhinges our 
Parliamentary regime , and it is high time that we should take care 
lest this regime falls completely into disuse, and personal power 
triumphs (applause on the extreme left). 

Let us now see the result which this system has produced, to the 
detriment of Belgian finances. You know, gentlemen, that Belgium 
is a shareholder in the Congo Railway to an amount of fifteen 
millions. At a given moment the administration of the Congo Rail¬ 
way was compelled to lower its rates. This decree in freight charges 
was favourable to the Congo State, and to the King, for the con¬ 
veyance of the products of the Domaine Prive. The consequence of 
the new tariff has been a decrease in the profits, and it is Belgium 
which has felt the loss principally, as shareholder. The Belgian 
Treasury is losing at least 200,000 to 300,000 francs. Another char¬ 
acteristic fact. It came out the other day that the Ministry had 
authorised the construction, without the knowledge of the House, at 
the Chateau of Laeken, of a railway tunnel, which is going to cost 
3,000,000 francs.* I have even been told that a year or two ago the 
King ordered, without consulting his Railway Minister, a new rail¬ 
way train, from the Compagnie des Wagons-Lits, which order was 
executed in the works of this company at Vincennes. The Belgian 
Treasuty had ultimately to pay (outcry on the extreme left). This 
train, it seems, cost from 500,000 to 600,000 francs (renewed outcry 
on the extreme left). 

M. Allard: —Is that true? 

A Member on the extreme left :—They will not answer. 

M. Bertrand: —And what have we seen, gentlemen, in connection 
with this Palace of the King, which is being constructed at the 
present moment? This important work was put up for tender, 
but the lowest tender was set aside, and the contract was given to 
another, 200,000 francs above the lowest! This other contractor is 
a clerical deputy of Brussels, and a personal friend of the King, it 
is said—M. Fichefet. 

M. Terwagne: —Friends should not be treated like dogs! 

M. Bertrand: —Finally, gentlemen, I think it is high time, for the 
good name of the country, to protest against the existing regime; 
and, to return once more to the object of my interpellation, I 
endorse, so far as I am concerned, the conclusions of my friend 
Vandervelde. For years the adversaries of the system which we 
criticise have preached in the desert. To-day, all just and generous 
minds are convinced that system must be brought to a stop, because 
that which is at issue in this debate is not a political question, not a 
vain party question; it is, in truth, a question of justice and 
humanity (applause on the extreme left). 

M. BEERNAERT’S RESOLUTION. 

M. Beernaert:— Gentlemen, to conclude this debate, I have the 
honour to propose to the House the following Resolution:— 

“ The House, imbued with the ideas which presided over the foundation of the 
Congo State, and inspired the Act of Berlin, renders homage to all those who 
have devoted themselves to this civilising work; 


*An underground tunnel, connecting the Palace with the railway. It might 
be called, perhaps, the tunnel of discretion! 



64 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


“ And, seeing the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry instituted by the 
Congo State; 

“ Expresses confidence in the proposals which the Commission of Reforms 
is elaborating, and in the consequences which will be given to them; 

“ Passes to the Order of the Day, and decides to proceed without delay to the 
examination of the projected law of the 7th August, 1901, on the Government 
of the Colonial Possessions of Belgium.” 

M. MASSON’S RESOLUTION. 

M. Masson:— If you will allow me, Sir (addressing the Speaker), 
I will also read out a Resolution, which I have dratted, and which 
bears the signature of MM. Neujean, Janson, Mechelynck, Vander- 
velde, and my own:— 

“ The House, taking note of the constitution of the Commission for Reforms, 
following upon the disclosures made by the Commission of Inquiry instituted 
By the Congo State, and awaiting the effects of this measure; 

“ Considering that, before any discussion on the eventual taking over of the 
Congo, Belgium must be placed in a position to appreciate all the consequences 
which might result from annexation, without pre-judging the principle of the 
latter; 

“ And that, in this respect, it is especially necessary that the Government 
should demand from the Congo State the communication of all documents, 
accounts and reports of the nature to enlighten Parliament; 

“ Expresses the desire that the Central Committee of the House shall be 
invoked, without delay, to examine the bill of 7th August, 1901, on the Gov¬ 
ernment of the Colonial Possessions of Belgium, and passes to the Order of 
the Day.” 

The Speaker:— M. Woeste is in possession of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. WOESTE. 

M. Woeste:— Gentlemen, the debate which is before the House 
was opened by a prejudiced speech (protests on the extreme left). 
No doubt, here and there within it were to be noted a few platonic 
compliments towards the Congo enterprise, but criticism was not 
the less long, constant, or bitter on that account. Everything was 
blamed, everything was condemned; the past, the present, were not 
pardoned by M. Vandervelde; and as for the future, he stigmatised 
it in advance by saying that the Congo State was incapable of reform¬ 
ing itself. So implacable an indictment does not respond, in my 
opinion, to the average opinion of the public, and it will not be 
favourably received by the country. I do not deny that a sort of 
gale is at present blowing upon the Congo State. This gale has 
come from England, and has crossed the channel. England had ac¬ 
customed us to expect more sympathy and good feeling. I would 
point out, however, that there are many English statesmen who render 
homage to the grandeur, to the importance, to the brilliancy of the 
Congo enterprise.* 

M. Lorand: —Mr. Chamberlain notably.f 


* What a pity M. Woeste did not tell us who they were! Perhaps he in¬ 
cludes Sir Hugh Gilzean Reid and Sir Alfred Jones amongst English “ states¬ 
men ”! 

t Mr. Chamberlain, I believe, urged the late Government (when he was a 
member of it) upon repeated occasions, some years ago, to exercise British 
rights of Consular jurisdiction in the Congo, owing to the disgraceful treat¬ 
ment of British native subjects in the Congo State. He it was who forbade 
any further authorised recruiting, on the part of Congo State agents, for labour 
in the British West African Colonies. 






CONGO DEBATE TN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIYES. 65 

^ M. Woeste :—I appeal to the old sentiments of friendship of 
England for Belgium, and I express the hope, on the one hand, that 
the British Government will not associate itself with the exaggera¬ 
tions which have been manifested by a few of its citizens, and that, 
on the other hand, by an arrangement honourable for the two parties, 
the British Government will recognise the rights which a formal 
Convention has granted to the Congo State in the Bahr-el-Ghazal. 
But, however this may be, the attacks of which I speak have crossed 
the channel; they have found in Belgium a feeding ground in that 
school of disparagement whose adepts are numerous in our country, 
and whose mission it is to criticise everything which emanates from 
Belgium. Let one place before many Belgians an enterprise, an 
institution, an establishment created by their compatriots, and they 
will not seek to find in it any advantage; they will merely look for 
defects in detail. Is there a shadow in a picture—they will only see 
that shadow; they will make the entire picture of that shadow. As 
far as I am concerned, gentlemen, I do not associate myself with 
this injustice. I was one of the first to help, with my vote and with 
my voice, the Congo enterprise; and I remain attached to that enter¬ 
prise, whose grandeur I cannot, without injustice, fail to recognise. 
The Commission of Inquiry itself admitted that it had felt, in travel¬ 
ling in the Congo, a sense of wonderment. Is it not true that, twenty- 
five years ago, the Congo was delivered over to murders, to pillage, 
to cannibalism, to the slave trade, to hateful superstitions? Is it 
not true that it was a closed continent, and that to-day it is open, 
thanks to the initiative of the King of the Belgians? Is it not true 
that the Congo State, constituted in the heart of Africa, boasts of a 
regular system of administration ? Is it not true, too, that all moral 
civilisation and religious interests are therein protected? Is it not 
true that numerous ways of communication have been opened, allow¬ 
ing relations between the natives,* and relations between the natives 
and foreigners? Is it not true that commercial relations have been 
established between the Congo State and the greater part of the 
European States, and Belgium, and that our compatriots feel the 
salutary effects of this? Could Belgium, under these conditions, 
decline to consider the Congo as becoming one day her colony? I 
have just heard, in the Resolution presented by the Left, that opinion 
is reserved in this respect. No doubt the Belgian Chamber is not 
called upon at this moment to give a vote on the subject, but, to 
allow it to be thought that Belgium might one day renounce the 
Congo, would be an ingratitude towards the Sovereign which created 
it! It would be for Belgium a real moral decadence, because she 
would be renouncing to contribute to the work of civilisation in 
Africa, f It would also be an immense deception for our compatriots 
who have considered, and who still consider, the Congo a field of 
activity open to their efforts and their labours. So, gentlemen, the 
accusers of the Congo do not place themselves precisely upon that 
ground; what they say is, that out in the Congo there is a system to 
be indicted, that there are numerous abuses, that these abuses must 
be stigmatised, that they must disappear. Gentlemen, those who 


* Who cannot leave their villages without a permit, 
f She has certainly not contributed to it, hitherto. 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-5 




66 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 


speak thus seem to me to commit, in certain respects, a double error. 
But, assuredly, I am not amongst those who desire that abuses which 
have been pointed out should not disappear, but how great is the 
error of those who think that in a day, or even in a few. years, a bar¬ 
barous country can be transformed into a civilised one.* Civilisation 
has had a struggle there. It has had a struggle elsewhere, against 
inveterate habits, against profoundly low customs, against influences 
of education and environment, and it is only by long continuity of 
effort that the natives can be raised from this degraded state. Remem¬ 
ber, gentlemen, the origin of all European States. Remember the 
origin of the French monarchy. What illimitable disorders, what 
crimes were committed for several centuries, which only disappeared 
under the persistent influence of Christianity. History teaches us 
that it is only in the long run that public conscience can be improved, 
and customs humanised. 

M. Vandervelde But it is not the natives who commit these 
abuses! 

M. Hoyois The natives are concerned in them, notably the 
sentries. 

M. Woeste : — I did not catch what M. Hoyois said. 

M. Hoyois:— I replied to M. Vandervelde, who has just said that 
the natives are not concerned in the abuses. 

M. Lorand: —The abuses are attributable to the White men, that 
is what we say. The natives are the victims. 

M. Hoyois : — They are also attributable to the natives. 

M. Lorand: —To natives armed by the Whites for rubber raiding. 

M. Hoyois :-—You can discuss that later on. 

M. Woeste: —Alongside this primary error there is a second¬ 
ary one, and that is the idea that a barbarous country can be gov¬ 
erned on the lines of a civilised country. No doubt we must approx¬ 
imate to these lines as much as possible, but account must be taken 
of the mental condition of those whose civilisation f is aimed at. 
Proceedings which might have full success in our country, would be 
doomed there to complete sterility. Where you have an advanced 
state of civilisation, force must be set aside as much as possible. 
In barbarous countries, among infant peoples, coercion is often nec-. 
essary; authority must be felt, in order to be respected. It is due 
to the influence of the two errors which I am pointing out that so 
many inaccurate judgments have been pronounced, and are still pro¬ 
nounced, on the Congo State. The Congo State is looked upon, and 
I understand the desire up to a certain point, as another Belgium. 
I hope, gentlemen, it may be so one day; but, before this day comes, 
we must admit the necessity in which the governing element finds 
itself of often employing means other than those which are current 
in our civilised Europe. The Belgian Government is asked what it 
means to do to prevent the state of affairs which has been pointed 

* The point is, that a country in a condition of primitive barbarism is being 
degraded by this so-called civilisation to a level infinitely lower than its original 
state, and that, after twenty years of King Leopold’s personal rule, the natives 
are fewer in number, more impoverished, more wretched, than at any previous 
period of their history. 

f What hypocrisy is this! The whole Bench of Bishops, and the Curia 
combined, would be unequal to the task of civilising the “ civilisers ” of the 
Congo natives. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 67 

out, as if the Belgian Government were the government of the Congo 
State! When one goes to the root of matters, it will be recognised 
that the personality aimed at here is the Sovereign of the Congo 
State himself. 

M. A. Daens :—That is obvious. 

M. Woeste It is obvious, I am told! I thank the interrupter for 
this admission. 

M. Daens: —He deserves thanks. 

M. Woeste: —He deserves it! Now I no longer thank the inter¬ 
rupter (laughter on the extreme left). 

M. Daens :—Do not overdo your talent. 

M. Woeste :—Who amongst us would have had sufficient initia¬ 
tive and organising capacity to create the Congo State? Who 
amongst us would have had sufficient initiative and organising ca¬ 
pacity to drag Europe, in a certain measure, behind him? * * * § Who 
amongst us would have had sufficient initiative and organising 
capacity to create in twenty-five years this State, in giving to it 
an administration, judicial machinery, a regular police, and having 
already succeeded, in a large measure, in humanising the savage 
customs which prevailed therein? If such be the case, how can it 
be suggested that he who created and organised the Congo, should 
be incapable of assisting in its development? While associating 
myself with all my heart with the desire put forward by M. Beer- 
naert, by virtue of which the House is asked to examine the proposed 
Bill on the government of Colonial possessions, I must point out 
that a country like the Congo cannot be governed like a country 
with a Parliamentary system. A representative system is fitted for 
advanced civilisations, but not for civilisations in a primitive stated 
Emile Augier placed in the mouth of Richelieu these words: “ Des¬ 
potism alone brings order out of chaos.” I do not maintain that des¬ 
potism should use any kind of means to do so, but I maintain that 
it is from personal power that energetic initiative, rapidly executed, 
can be expected, which obtains in a few years magnificent results 
such as those obtained in the Congo.j; 

M. Lorand: —Despotisms like those of Russia, Turkey and the 
Congo, f 

M. Woeste:— Gentlemen, I hold in my hand a remarkable code 
of laws and regulations, which have been promulgated for the 
Congo for the last twenty-five years. If the Congo had been under 
a Parliamentary regime , if the Belgian House had been expected 
to deliberate with regard to it, I state as a fact that not a twentieth 
part of these laws would have been drafted; not a twentieth part 
of these regulations would have issued: § 

* The claims of duplicity and violation of the plighted word, or superla¬ 
tive hypocrisy, might also be added. 

f This, of course, is burking the whole question. The point is, not that 
the Congo should be governed as Belgium is governed, but that the Belgian 
Parliament and Public should be in a position to control the Congo adminis¬ 
tration, which at present they are not in a position to do. 

t Magnificent results for King Leopold personally, and for the financiers 
in partnership with him, but for the natives of the country a very abomina¬ 
tion of desolation. 

§ And the Congo State would have been better off, probably. At any rate, 
it could not have been in a worse position than it is in to-day—“ code ” and all. 



68 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE'OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Vandervelde: —Such as the forty hours law, for instance! 

M. Woeste This is what must be recognised. This is what com¬ 
mon sense and history teach us; but we are told there are many 
abuses there. M. Vandervelde told us: U I pointed out these abuses 
in the past; I was not believed; now facts confirm my statements. 
The honourable member is mistaken. It was. never denied that 
abuses existed in the Congo, but to this admission was added that 
it was almost impossible that there should not be any. These 
abuses arise from the immensity of the territory, from the small 
number of Belgians who administrate it, from ingrained habits 
which object to the innovations introduced by the Belgians.* * * § And 
also—why should I not say so?—from the fact that, especially at 
first, the officials have not always been picked, f When the King 
initiated the Congo enterprise, there were a number of people who 
considered his action as utopian. Belgians whose position at home 
is a stable and sure one were little tempted to emigrate into unknown 
regions, and to risk their lives and their future therein. It was nec¬ 
essary to accept the services of all willing men who came forward. 
But it is not the less true that as the enterprise grew, and as it will 
grow, the personnel will steadily improve, \ and that this person?iel 
will consider its honour is involved in causing the abuses which have 
been pointed out to disappear. The only reproach which might be 
brought against the Congo State, if it be founded, would be that, 
when abuses have been pointed out to it, it has not wished to sup¬ 
press them. Now, gentlemen, if we consult the laws of the Congo, 
and the regulations which have been issued, and to which I alluded 
a moment ago, it will be seen that the constant effort of those who 
direct the Congo State has been to place the Congo under a regular 
and normal regime, § and when, latterly, lacunce have been shown in 
its legislation, when necessary reforms were pointed to, and abuses 
requiring suppression, the Congo State itself constituted a Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry, and when the latter made its report, it was again 
the Congo State, which, without delay, appointed another Commis¬ 
sion to prepare the necessary legislation required to bring about re¬ 
forms. || M. Vandervelde put on one side the work of this Com¬ 
mission. According to him, reforms will not be carried out, because 
the Congo State is incapable of reforming itself. It is here that the 
system of personal hostility to the Sovereign of the Congo State 
appears. It is also on this point that the honourable member, I am 
convinced, will not be followed by public opinion. The direct in- 

* Such as the cliicotte, the chain-gang, the hostage house, never-ending levies 
in various produce and cultivated food-stuffs; levies in wife and child, in life 
and limb. 

t On the contrary, there has been a steady declension of the type and morale 
of the official on the Congo, dragged down by the system to its level. 

% The exact contrary is the case under the present system. 

§ Why has the Congo Government suppressed the judgments in cases of 
atrocities, passed by its own Law Courts, during the last ten years? Why 
does the Governor-General stop criminal actions against White men? Why 
are Europeans, accused of monstrous crimes, allowed to return home unmo¬ 
lested? Why is the Judiciary dependent upon the Executive, which, itself, 
violates the laws of the land? 

|| A Commission, three-fourths composed of the very men who have directed, 
up to the present, the vast system of criminal oppression now exposed. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 69" 

tervention of Belgium in the Congo State is asked for, as if Belgium 
had such a right to exercise, such a mission to fulfil. 

M. Terwagxe :—She has the right to pay ! 

M. Mansart :—And to furnish men ! 

M. Woeste:—T he argument is based on two grounds; first, that 
Belgium lends to the Congo State her officials, and her officers. 

M. Mansart :—And pays them the while! 

M. Woeste:—N ow, it is not Belgium who lends them. The Bel¬ 
gian State does not lend them as a State, but the Belgian State grants 
individual permission (outcry on the extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde :—That is inaccurate. They are alleged to be 
drawn from the Institute of Military Cartography. 

M. Bertrand :—And they are paid! 

M. Woeste :—They are withdrawn from the Institute of Military 
Cartography, and no one is ignorant of the fact that it is to take 
service on the Congo, and we are asked to deny to Belgians the 
right to go out there to contribute in expanding the work of civili¬ 
sation ! * So far as I am concerned, far from blaming the Govern¬ 
ment, I congratulate it on having allowed our officers to go to the 
Congo. It has also been made a matter of complaint that the officers, 
who felt themselves bound to devote their energies to the Congo State, 
should still retain their salaries as Belgian officers! What! Here 
are officers who leave their country, their family, perhaps their future 
hopes, who expose themselves to a destructive climate, and to all the 
risks of pacific or other conquests,! which it may be necessary to 
undertake in this distant country, and Belgium would be ungenerous 
enough to withhold from these men of noble heart a legitimate re¬ 
muneration! Far be it from me to uphold such a contention! 

M. Mansart :—Therefore, Belgium has something to do with the 
Congo after all! 

M. Woeste:—A nother motive is invoked, to justify the interven¬ 
tion of Belgium. We are told, “ Read the Act of Berlin. There is in 
that Act an Article, Article 6, which ensures the protection to the 
natives.” Yes, Belgium was happy to be able to give her assent to 
the Act of Berlin, and notably to Article 6. The Congo State did 
the same. How colossal is the error, however, of those who think 
that, because this programme has been legitimately drawn up, we 
can apply it to the Congo from one day to the next by extending over 
the Congo territory a magic wand, and ensure everywhere the pro¬ 
tection of the native, wherever he may be! All this can only be a 
work of time. The bitter critics of the Congo State have not sought 
to show us that if the Congo were annexed at the present time to 
Belgium, and if the Belgian Government administered the Congo 
from Brussels, it w ould be in a better position than the Congo State 

* The Italian Government, which at one time lent considerably over one hun¬ 
dred officers of its army to the Congo State, at King Leopold’s pressing re¬ 
quest, because, as he said, he could not find in the Belgian Army a sufficiency 
of reliable men, has come to the conclusion that the work which the officers 
of the Congo Army are compelled to perform is not a work of civilisation, 
but a work of brigandage. It has decided that henceforth no Italian officer will, 
under any circumstances whatever, be allowed to join King Leopold’s Congo 
Army, and in less than a year from now, there will not be a single Italian 
officer left on the Congo. The Italian Government has greater regard for the 
honour of its officers than M. Woeste for the honour of the Belgian Army. 

t Especially “ other ” ! 



70 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

to ensure the protection of the natives.* * * § Such an attempt will not 
be made. It would go against reason and history. But still, we are 
told, there are abuses. There are reprehensible things taking place 
in the Congo. Assuredly, and I admitted so much a moment ago, 
but what exaggeration there is also. Thus, M. Vandervelde did not 
hesitate to say that the slave trade was still rife in the Congo. But 
what is the slave trade? It consists in the fact that men who, 
being owners of other men, sell the latter.f Now, to justify the 
charge which the honourable member directed against the Congo 
State, what does he advance? He quoted the fact that recruiting 
was carried out in the Congo on the basis of bonuses granted to 
the recruiters. Is that, gentlemen, the slave trade? I appeal to 
your common sense, and to your consciences. No one will reply in 
the affirmative. These recruiting operations constitute a legitimate^ 
act in themselves, and the labour which the recruiters undertake de¬ 
serves recompense. Certainly, the sojourn of Arabs in the Congo 
has left some traces. Mohammedans from Zanzibar, and Arabised 
natives, have formed here and their small communities where dis¬ 
guised slavery and gross immorality is practised. We know that. 
The Congo State has sought, to the extent which was humanely 
possible, to remedy this state of affairs. The past is for us a guaran¬ 
tee of the future. What it has alreacty done it will continue to do, 
but the injustice consists in saying that, in a country eighty times 
as large as Belgium, and in twenty-five years, all ills can be ex¬ 
tirpated, as it were, instantaneously. § Abuses have been spoken of. 
I return to the criticisms directed against the Congo State. The 
land regime is complained of. In this connection, what is the para¬ 
mount factor? It is shown by the Commission of Inquiry itself in 
the following terms: “ The greater portion of the land in the Congo 
is not cultivated.” Not being cultivated, and the natives not being 
able to produce titles to these lands (outcry on the Socialist 
benches), they belong to the State in strict law, and in conformity 
with general principles (laughter on the same benches). But, along 
with the question of law, there is the question of practice, and it was 
precisely to regulate the latter question that the Commission of 
Keforms has been constituted. The fact is that the natives went 
and came. They gathered the produce of the forests, not, as has been 
insinuated, in order to collect rubber, because rubber was not collected 
by them. 

* No doubt, if M. Woeste and his friends had their way, the same system 
which King Leopold, as personal ruler, has applied to the Congo territories, 
would also be applied to the Congo territories by Belgium. But it is a poor 
compliment to Belgium to suppose that such would be the case. If it were, 
assuming annexation to take place, Belgium herself would be confronted with 
the same implacable and determined censure which has been visited upon the 
Congo State by those who have some regard for the responsibilities and the 
pledges undertaken by civilisation in respect to the Congo natives. If Belgium 
desires to receive the sanction and the support of civilisation for a direct admin¬ 
istration of the Congo by herself, she will do well to clip the wings of M. Woeste 
and his friends. 

t This is a very limited description. 

t It is, then, legitimate to raid villages, and seize able-bodied men, chain 
them, and take them off to the military camps to be trained? 

§ The point is, of course, that in the last twenty years, upon the natural ills 
of the country have been grafted new ills, transcending immeasurably those 
which existed before. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF BEPRESENTATIVES. 71 

M. Vandervelde: —That is inaccurate. 

M. W oeste :—In any case, they did collect some produce, and I 
understand that, under these conditions, the Congo State, in con¬ 
stituting the Commission for Reforms, desired especially to draw its 
attention to this point, in order to give greater satisfaction to the 
natives than that which they possess through the strict and rigorous 
application of the principles to which I referred a moment ago. 
Complaint has also been made that the natives Avere compelled to 
work; that a labour tax was imposed upon them. What a singular 
reproach! Is it not by work that man is formed; that man rises; 
that man realises the full possession of his dignity?* * * § And how 
can it be denied that the Congo State, by teaching the natives to 
work, contributes in the highest degree to a civilising effort? More¬ 
over, the Congo State has given to this country a system of regular 
administration and law. These are advantages whose effects are 
felt by the natives.t It is fair that they should pay for the pro¬ 
tection Avhicli is assured to them, as we pay in our country for the 
advantages which result from the protection guaranteed to our people 
and our property.! And, seeing that in the Congo, payment cannot 
be made in money, is it astonishing that such payment should be made 
in labour, especially when, as I pointed out a moment ago, this labour 
is demanded from peoples sunk in idleness up to the present, and 
which will, little by little, accustom them to a regular life? We 
find the Commission of Inquiry saying:— 

“ We have recognised the necessity in the Congo of a labour tax. The amount 
of this tax, fixed at forty hours per month, appeared to us equitable. Neither 
do Ave propose to contest the legitimacy of the principle of coercion inscribed 
in the law. Nevertheless, we consider that, in the application of this law, 
the officials should show the greatest toleration.” 

Has this toleration always been employed? It seems that it has not. 
But that the intentions themselves of the Congo State are not here 
in question, the Commission of Inquiry gives an instance: 

“ Whatever may be thought, it says, of native ideas, proceedings such as 
the detention of women as hostages are too violently opposed to our ideas of 
justice to be tolerated.” 

Certain newspapers stopped the above quotation at this point. But 
this is how the Commission continues: 

“ The State has prohibited this practice for a long time past, but without suc¬ 
ceeding in suppressing it.” § 


* By giving to an alien Administration 286 days labour in the year for 
nothing? 

t For instance—In case of atrocities perpetrated by Europeans upon natives 
in the Upper Congo, native witnesses have been compelled to travel over 1,000 
miles from their homes to give evidence! Even the Commission of Inquiry 
admits that they seldom return. A curious kind of “ advantage ” ! 

t The protection guaranteed to the natives by the Congo State consists in 
appropriating their property, and in claiming their persons for the benefit of 
the “ State,” which consists of King Leopold, his financial friends, and 2,000 
employees, for which protection the Congo native is subjected to a life of in¬ 
cessant and unremunerated toil in the interests of his taskmasters, to atro¬ 
cious punishments, and to every form of violence from the whip to the bullet. 
The dishonesty of the whole speech is such, however, that comment is more 
or less of a superfluity. 

§ It has suppressed it on paper, and known of its perpetration in practice. 
Its Governor-Generals have issued circulars authorizing the taking of host 
ages, making no distinction between men and women. 




72 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

It is always thus that things occur in countries which are still bar¬ 
barous like the Congo. A principle is laid down, it is sought to be 
applied, and cannot be applied at once in a complete manner; that 
is a matter of time. Those who refuse to recognise that time has 
here to play a great part, forget the lessons of history; and if they 
will not admit those lessons, they must be left to the onersided views 
which influence them. Another complaint has been made against 
the Congo State. It has been said that the profits w T hich accrue from 
the exploitation of the Congo had gone to Belgium, continue to go 
to Belgium—had served, and continue to serve, Belgian enterprises. 
Gentlemen, in the note which was sent in 1901 to the Central Com¬ 
mittee of this House, which note w r as concerned in settling definitely 
the situation of the Congo State towards Belgium, we may read the 
following passage:— 

“ The Congo State declares once more that it has no private objects or inter¬ 
ests, and that it pursues its mission with the view to the sole advantage of 
Belgium. Its past bears witness to, and confirms the sincerity of this declara¬ 
tion. Its action, its constant effort to increase the economic prosperity of 
Belgium, its persevering efforts to this effect, the results which it has obtained, 
protest against certain suspicions which exist at the present time, and which 
hardly seem to be inspired by the public interest.” 

That was a great and noble thought, which should be everywhere 
appreciated in our country. The Congo has been created and organ¬ 
ised in the interests of the country which one day will be its mother 
country.* Is it not right that Belgium should profit in a fair 
measure from the benefits which she is giving to the Congo? How 
can one fail to recognise, for instance, that the revenues which have 
served to construct the Colonial Palace at Tervueren, allow of our 
countrymen appreciating the advantages which result from closer 
relationship with the Congo? f How can it be contended that these 
revenues, thus applied, are not useful to the two States, and to the 
two peoples? I am, moreover, convinced that the Congo State will 
understand increasingly that, without wishing to withdraw absolutely 
from Belgium the revenues obtained from the Congo, it is necessary 
to devote a large portion of its resources, perhaps the greater portion, 
to improving the morality, the civilisation, and the development of 
the Congo from every point of view. 

M. Vandervelde:— That will be the beginning of wisdom. 

M. Woeste : — I am told it will be the beginning of wisdom. I do 
not admit the accuracy of the interruption, because I have said 
already that the Congo was created and organised, thanks to the 
efforts and to the labours of the King and of Belgium,]; and that it is 
legitimate that the profits of these efforts and this labour should not 
be wholly withheld from Belgium. But we are entering a new phase, 
and this new phase should be characterised, in my opinion, by a fair 
division. The revenues of the Congo should be used, before anything 
else, for the moral and intellectual improvement of the natives, in the 
organising of their country; the balance, being used for Belgium, 
will cause Belgium to devote herself more and more to the needs of 


* When the King has sucked it dry as a squeezed lemon! 
t To breed pupils of the Leopoldian system, and propagate still further the 
slave-trade spirit in Belgium and outside of it. 

t Four-fifths of the earlier pioneers of the Congo were not Belgians at all, but 
Englishmen, Americans, Germans, etc. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 73 


the future Colony. In connection with the present discussion, the 
question of the annexation of the Congo by Belgium has been men¬ 
tioned, but the fact that annexation is not actually before the country 
appears to be lost sight of. In order that it should be before the 
country, the Congo would have to be offered to us. 

M. Vandervelde: —It may be offered to us to-morrow. 

M. Woeste :—It is true that at a given moment the Sovereign King 
said to Belgium: “ If you wish to annex the Congo you can do so; if 
you do not wish to annex it, I leave a will by which the Congo may 
belong to you after me.” But in 1901, when the problem of settling 
definitely the relationship between Belgium and the Congo came up 
for examination, the alternatives before Parliament were clearly indi¬ 
cated in a letter written on the 28th March, 1901, by Baron Van 
Eetvelde to M. de Smet de Naeyer, to be communicated to the House. 
These alternatives were stated as follows:— 

“ If Belgium declares for annexation, the Congo Government will lend her all 
its help. If Belgium declares against annexation, the Congo Government will 
pay the interest on the sums advanced, and the capital itself, according to the 
terms of the Convention of 1890, and of the law of the 29th June, 1895, however 
onerous this charge may be. If Belgium prefers not to give her opinion at the 
present moment on the question of annexation, if she prefers to leave the door 
open, and consequently postpone the payment of the interest on the loan and 
the reimbursement of the capital, the Congo State is prepared to accept this 
solution also.” 

It was on the third alternative that the Congo State and the Belgian 
Parliament agreed, and it was also to urge that third alternative upon 
Parliament that, in the letter which the Sovereign of the Congo did 
me the honour to send me on the 11th June, 1901, he crystallised the 
thoughts which dictated his action. The House will allow me to 
recall two extracts from that letter:— 

“ If annexation were now voted—that is to say, before the time has come 
when annexation can give to Belgium all the benefits w r hich I wish to assure to 
her—the Congo State will naturally refuse to continue its administration, to 
participate in a sort of mixed government, which in practice would be a veritable 
chaos, and which would only produce, internally and externally, conflicting 
influences and misunderstandings. Can it be conceived that, simultaneously, a 
desire is expressed to annex the State, and that the State should continue for 
several years its ad interim task? It must be recognised that Belgium is not 
ready, and is not in a position to replace, at the present time, the existing 
administration.” * 


* What happened was, of course, this: of the three alternatives, the first two 
were put forward and acquiesced in for the sake of form; the third was insisted 
upon, which was made quite clear at the time by the letter to which M. Woeste 
refers. The Sovereign of the Congo State did not want Belgium to annex the 
Congo then; he does not want Belgium to annex the Congo now, for the very 
simple reason that, if annexation took place, not only would he have to render 
an account of the sums which he has personally appropriated from the Congo 
revenues, but he would also be compelled to disgorge the real accounts of reve¬ 
nue and expenditure of the Congo State, and throw light upon the loans which 
the Congo State has contracted. He would also have to renounce in future the 
incontestable advantages of pillaging the Congo revenues at his own will and 
pleasure, and he w r ould have to abandon raising loans on the Congo State, the 
proceeds of which are applied by him to other enterprises and speculations, and, 
in short, to any objects which he may think fit. While reformers in this country 
are compelled to adopt an attitude more or less reserved towards the question of 
Belgian annexation, few of them, we should imagine, are its determined 
opponents, but King Leopold most certainly is. 







74 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 

The above passage showed the impossibility of immediate annexation. 
But, revealing more clearly his thought in another passage, to which 
the House finally adhered implicitly, the Sovereign added 

“A gift to Belgium of a notable part of my property, the. option given spon¬ 
taneously to Belgium to take possession of the Congo when she cares to, my 
present demand to Belgium not to annex the Congo until it is wholly productive, 
are facts which manifest clearly in all its disinterestedness my unshakeable 
and royal attachment to the country to whose services I have consecrated my 
life.” * 

Inspired by these ideas, the Convetions of 1901 were arrived at. The 
King, taking note of the intentions of Belgium, demanded the latter 
not to annex the Congo before it was wholly productive. No voice 
was finally raised to contend that it should be otherwise, and it is 
these arrangements which regulate at the present time the relations 
between the Congo State and our country. No doubt, gentlemen, 
the King would be willing to offer us the Congo State once more, and 
at once; but, as I have just pointed out, the question of annexation 
cannot be entertained before this new offer lias been put forward. At 
the present moment v T e are faced by the will and testament of the 
King. Under these circumstances, how can M. Vandervelde, with¬ 
out even making a formal proposal on this subject, have asked Par¬ 
liament to order a Parliamentary inquiry relating to the Congo? 
Assuredly, Belgium would have the right to do so, if the Conga State 
belonged to her. But it would be an inauguration without precedent 
in the history of peoples, without possible justification, if one State 
took upon itself to institute an inquiry relating to affairs which take 
place in another State which does not belong to it. 

M. Vandervelde : — The relations between Belgium and the Congo 
are also without precedent in history. 

M. Woeste : — In certain respects, yes. However, the relations actu¬ 
ally prevailing between the Congo and Belgium are no other than the 
relations of a special good-will, of a real st^mpathy. (Ironical 
laughter on the extreme left.) I would go further, and say that they 
are relations born, in a measure, from the expectation which belongs 
to Belgium, but they do not go beyond that point; and it remains 
true that the Congo State does not belong to Belgium, and that, 
consequently, we should be ill inspired to intervene directly in its 
affairs. Gentlemen, I have attempted to be as brief as possible. I 
think, however, that I have placed matters from the true point of 
view, from the point of view which they shoud be looked at. Follow¬ 
ing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have not denied, and I do not 


* It is, perhaps, just as well that the worthy Mr. Pecksniff is no longer 
amongst us, for assuredly his star would have been dimmed by this royal 
penman. The Congo State, if we regard it is a tropical dependency, has been 
wholly productive, otherwise a paying concern for many years past; but, in 
his exalted “ disinterestedness,” in his passionate desire that Belgium should 
reap where her Sovereign has sown, King Leopold has thought fit to prevent 
this knowledge from reaching the ears of his people, and has steadily drawn, for 
the last ten years, from the Congo revenues, millions of francs, which he has 
appropriated to purposes of his own, and which he has not accounted for, and 
has issued to the world and to Belgium, budgetary estimates showing the 
Congo State to be a losing concern. Meanwhile, the Congo State, instead of 
approaching a period of absolute productiveness, is becoming increasingly im¬ 
poverished. The genius of Gilbert and Sullivan would alone do justice to the 
situation. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 75 

deny, that reforms are useful in the Congo State, that they may be 
even necessary. Neither have I denied, and neither do I deny, that 
regrettable events have occurred therein, although it is difficult to 
conceive how it could have been otherwise. But, taking the enter¬ 
prise as a whole, it must be admitted that it deserves praise and 
encouragement, not blame and criticism, and this is why, far from 
censuring the Congo State, I desire, in conclusion, only to address 
towards it words of cordial sympathy. I desire also that the Conga 
State shall, in order to fulfil its mission, protect more and more all 
the moral, intellectual and religious affairs which .are developing 
themselves so freely out there. Latterly the missionaries have been 
violently attacked.* They were not sufficiently heard; their estab¬ 
lishments were not sufficiently inspected! But facts speak louder 
than attacks and insinuations; the missionaries clear the ground; 
they found schools; they propagate the Bible (which is always good 
tidings) ; they improve the natives by familiarising them with a reg¬ 
ular and normal life; they influence them towards the law of work; 
they impose upon them a moral discipline; and, in a word, they re¬ 
move them from savage life. These services, which their predecessors 
have rendered to all European States, and to America, are services 
which cannot be exaggerated. They testify higher than the critics 
and censorians who do not know them, who have not studied their 
work, who allow themselves to be influenced by I do not know what 
blamable hatred. One day they will be thanked for what they have 
done in the Congo, as history thanks the priests and the nuns who 
have contributed to the civilisation of European and American 
States. The work of the Congo will remain, I am convinced, in all 
impartial eyes, a grand and fine enterprise. Such also will be the 
judgment of posterity.f Whatever may be done, whatever may be 
said, it will be to the honour of King Leopold II., as it will be to the 
honour also of all those in Belgium who, only considering the moral 
and material interests of the native population .... 

M. Vandervelde 'The shareholders of the A.B.I.R., for instance 

(laughter on the extreme left). 

M. Woeste : — ... have devoted themselves to those inter¬ 

ests, following the King, and have refused to allow themselves to be 
shaken by critics, the least of whose faults is a total lack of generosity 
and justice. I am tempted to say, in closing, to the Congo State, 
“ Courage, courage. (Laughter and outcry on the extreme left.) No 
human enterprise is sheltered from charges and calumnies; reform 
what it may be necessary to reform in your affairs, reform . . . . 

M. Vandervelde Very good, very good ! 

M. Woeste :— ... but allow the flood of calumnies and charges 
to pass without allowing yourself to be arrested in your progressive 
march. These charges will fall heavily on those who bring them 
(applause on the right). 

* By whom? By the King’s Commission! 

f M. Woeste is no more complimentary to posterity than he is to Belgium. 



76 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 

SPEECH BY M. COLFS.* 

M. Colfs:— Gentlemen, in 1896 I denounced in this House the 
reprehensible events which are taking place in the Congo—villages 
burned by white men, the slave trade practised by Belgians, the most 
ignoble vices increasing among certain groups of young men. To 
that part of my speech not a word was uttered in reply. In 1900, I 
returned once more to the charge. M. de Favereau had read out to 
the House, on behalf of the Congo* administration, a strong protest 
against the charges made. No fact had been proved, he said, but if 
abuse had occured it was a contravention of instructions, and the 
guilty parties would be severely punished. So the document read. 
The effusion of the Congo State closed with a flourish of trumpets, 
which M. Cousebant f endorsed by waving the Belgian flag. Against 
these statements I produced proofs. I showed that sanguinary in¬ 
structions were issued; were executed by certain Belgian officers, 
alas! I offered other proofs, but they took good care not to ask me 
to communicate them, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs thought 
himself very clever, in order to weaken the effect which these revela¬ 
tions might have produced, to carp at certain words; quite wrongly, 
as I showed him later on in the discussion. I was not allowed to 
reply to the objections of another member. The Report of the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry proves that the abuses which had been pointed out 
to me at that time, and of which I offered proof, are numerous. 

Neither was any importance attached to the revelations which were 
brought forward in other parts of the House. Thus the smear of 
shame graven upon our national honour; a shame which might have 
been effaced ten years ago, and which from henceforth no one can 
profess to ignore, has increased to such an extent that—I say it with 
pain, and with grief—history will retain the memory of it. Later 
on we shall ask ourselves why so much effort and so much courage 
was necessary, in order to tell a small part of the truth, and how it 
happened that so many people, amongst whom are many honourable 
men, were able to band themselves together, in order to bring about a 
conspiracy of silence. We shall ask ourselves what was the power 
strong enough to use all this for its own profit. 

As for me, I have the right—I have suffered not a little on that 
account—to remind the House that I implored the Government not to 
play the part of Pontius Pilot by washing its hands of the blood of 
our brethren spilled on African soil. Last Tuesday, the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs stated that we had not the right to intervene, that 
neither the Treaty of Berlin nor the Brussels Convention authorised 
us to do so. But the rights of Belgian control are very much stronger 
than those stipulated in these Treaties. They are embodied in a Con¬ 
vention agreed to between Belgium and the Congo State, when the lat¬ 
ter was in need of our pecuniary assistance. They are manifest, again, 
in the circumstance that our Minister for War lends to the Congo 
State officers on active service, with special advantages, and at the ex¬ 
pense of the Belgian tax-payer, which advantages are guaranteed to 

* Le Patriote has pointed out in an article (May) that since this speech was 
delivered, the speaker has been deliberately passed over by the King, in respect 
to the periodical decorations to which, it seems, Belgian members of Parliament 
are entitled by customary usage. 

t Minister for War. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES. 77 

no officer who may be desirous of following out any other mission but 
this one particular mission. They are embodied still more so in the 
fact of the intervention of Belgian diplomatic agents with foreign 
Powers when the question of foreign relationship is under discussion. 
Contrary to its duty, the Belgian Government has constituted itself the 
systematic defender of the Congo administration. It has, moreover, 
consented to the abandonment by Belgium of all right of control; so 
much so that by a deliberate policy the only mission left to Belgium 
in regard to the Congo State is to cover it and protect it under any 
circumstances, and this after having helped the birth and the devel¬ 
opment of that State! I maintain that the Belgian Government and 
the Belgian Parliament have, to a very much larger extent than for¬ 
eign Parliaments and Governments, the right and the duty to concern 
themselves with what goes on in the Congo. The example of Italy, 
which, in face of the facts we know, no longer authorises her officers, 
even on leave, to go to this part of Africa, is a reproach to us. Some 
notable Statesmen here were filled with very grave anxiety when the 
proposal was made that the King should be allowed to fuse the two 
crowns.* In order to dissipate their apprehensions, very fine prom¬ 
ises were made, and very weighty guarantees uttered. I am con¬ 
vinced that, after what we have experienced, their anxiety would have 
been increased. 

From 1895 onwards, the conspiracy against truth has been organised 
from top to bottom, under well-nigh unbelievable conditions, in order to 
hide the crimes which are committed in the Congo .\ But justice, which 
triumphs sooner or latter, has shown up calumny, and struck down 
victorious crime. This celestial justice has been manifested. The 
Commission of Inquirj^ was appointed under the pressure of Foreign 
Public Opinion. This Inquiry has provided a happy channel of 
escape, because if it had not been decided upon, an International Con¬ 
ference would have assembled, and the Congo State would certainly 
have suffered. This Commission has admitted as authentic the 
greater part of the charges brought even by foreigners, and thus at¬ 
one blow has disposed of the insinuations which the Congo State— 
and certain of our colleagues with it—brought forward to meet all 
opposition, by imputing to it co-operation with the foreigner against 
the interests of Belgium, whose interests were deliberately con¬ 
founded with the interests of the Congo State. M. Woeste attempted 
to excuse the acts of officials of the State and agents of the Com¬ 
panies. The Report of the Commission answers him. Ten years 
ago, I demanded a Commission of Inquiry; the suggestion was not 
even discussed, which entitles me to say that inquiry was feared. 
What was refused to a Belgian deputy, was granted to English 
Protestant missionaries, whose malignant intentions are, however, 
known. J I demand that the control of Belgium shall be effective, 
incessant. In very truth, our representatives, employed by the 

* That is to say, to be at once Sovereign of the Congo State and King of the 
Belgians. 

t No truer words were ever spoken. Never has carefully-calculated mendac¬ 
ity reached heights so serene, or been maintained by means more infamous. 

t It was granted, not to Protestant missionaries, but to British public opinion. 
If malignancy means protesting when men, women and children are shot down, 
ruthlessly murdered and tortured under one’s very eyes, then the Protestant 
missionaries are malignant. 



78 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Congo State, are, above all, the representatives of the Congo State 
itself, since they can only be appointed by the head of that State. 
The Congo State is, perhaps, the only State in the world where 
Belgians can not be protected against the local authorities.* * * § 
Our missionaries have less liberty than foreign missionaries. 
They are expected to keep silence, and, as the Bien Public has so well 
put it, even from our missionaries, optimistic statements are alone toler¬ 
ated. There is, therefore, a gag. This gag is only placed in the mouths 
of Belgian missionaries, and it was to ensure this result that the Congo 
State urged so strongly upon the Vatican to agree that Catholic evangel¬ 
isation on the Congo should be confined exclusively to Belgians. As for 
foreign Protestant missionaries, the Congo State dares not touch 
them.f On the contrary, the Commission of Inquiry eulogises them.J 
This is what Belgium has retained from so many sacrifices—a state 
of subjection for her children! I ask the missionaries to remember 
that they are Belgians, that they are entitled to enjoy on the Congo 
the rights conferred upon all nations, and upon all religious propa¬ 
ganda by the Berlin Act. Let this system be done away with, and if 
the Congo State molests our missionaries, let it be at once pilloried by 
Christian nations. 

Numerous Voices:—“Adjourn.” 

The Speaker: —The House has decided to close the discussion 
to-morrow. Could you not close your speech to-day ? 

Cries of “ No, no.” 

The Speaker: —The discussion will then be continued to-morrow. 


THIRD DAY’S DEBATE (FEB. 28TH). 

M. Colfs (Catholic). M. Lorand (Liberal). 

M. de Smet de Naeyer (Premier). 

M. Vandervelde (Leader of the Labour Party). 

The Speaker: —Gentlemen, we resume M. Vandervelde’s interpel¬ 
lation. M. Coifs will continue his speech. 

M. Colfs : — Gentlemen, at the end of yesterday’s sitting, I said 
that it is only the Catholic missionaries who are gagged; the Prot¬ 
estant missionaries can go everywhere, collect evidence, provoke 
opinion hostile to the Congo State, and we Belgians and Christians 
are accused of acting with an interested object when we expose the 
wickedness and the atrocities which take place in the Congo. The 
missionaries, who have been accused without proof, have protested 
in their official newspapers, and over the signatures of the heads of 
the Congo missions they declare, in a document compiled with 
extreme moderation, that “ In certain missions no missionary was 
called to testify, no missionary was listened to, notwithstanding 
reiterated offers.” Such is the case of the missions specially incrimi¬ 
nated by this Report. § Access to certain territory is forbidden to 

* In the Senate, in April last, Count d’Ursel asked that a Belgian Consul 
he appointed in the Congo State, to protect the interests of Belgians. M. de 
Favereau refused the request 

t Vide the case of M. Stannard, for instance! 

t Because the Commissioners were convinced of their integrity. 

§ The Report of King Leopold’s Commissioners. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 79 

Catholic missionaries,* * * § and they can only settle where the State 
allows them to do so.f Thus the State sought to compel them to 
settle in swampy regions, deprived of all resources, while exacting, 
for a mere lease of land, a rent seventy times higher than any neigh¬ 
bouring colony. J At the end of thirty years, the Congo Government 
reserves to itself, under this lease the right to expel the missionaries, 
to benefit by their laborious clearing of the soil, by their costly con¬ 
structions, residences, schools, orphanages, hospitals, workshops 
which they may have built, furnished, provided with tools, all 
obtained from the money of Belgian Catholics, to be utilised by the 
Congo State to God knows what end. All guarantees are not, there¬ 
fore, given to our missionaries, whatever people may say. 

The principal cause of the uprisings which incessantly take place, 
and the stamping out of which entail massacres of entire villages, 
is due to forced labour. We are told that work raises man; reason¬ 
able work, yes, but not work such as is imposed on the Congo. § We 
must not forget that the natives are addicted to hunting, fishing, and 
cultivation. They spend the majority of their time in idleness. 
Suddenly work is forced upon them, which requires them to be long 
absent from their homes. In the course of this work they are super¬ 
vised by black head-corporals {capita#) , deliberately chosen from 
soldiers belonging to hostile tribes. The Report of the Commission 
of Inquiry says that:— 

“According to witnesses, the sentries, especially those who are stationed in 
the villages, abuse the authority placed in them, making themselves into 
despots, claiming the women and the foodstuffs, not only for themselves, but 
for the band of parasites and scallywags which the love of rapine associates 
with them, and with whom they surround themselves, as by a veritable body¬ 
guard. They kill without pity all those who attempt to resist their exigencies 
and their whims. The charges brought against the sentries appear to be the 
outcome of a mass of evidence and official reports.” 

It is easy to understand what must be the consequence of this. 
Notwithstanding all its abbreviations, the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry has enough to tell us on that score. It cannot be 
maintained that the Congo State was ignorant of these facts; || nor 
that the regulations fixing labour at forty hours per month were not 
drafted to deceive Europe. ^ The Congo State was fully informed of 


* And to Protestant missionaries. 

t So with Protestant missionaries. 

t By the terms of the Loan of 1901, all sums derivable from the sales of land 
were, I believe, to be devoted to paying off the capital. In other words, the 
proceeds of the sales would go to Belgium, not to the Congo State. The Sov¬ 
ereign of that State finds he can obtain quite as much for leasing land as 
for selling 'it, and as, in the former case, the proceeds go towards that mys¬ 
terious compilation, the Congo State “ budget,” and not to Belgium, it is seen 
to be preferable to lease land rather than sell it. This point seems to have 
escaped all the speakers in the debate. 

§ A minimum of 286 days per annum, with the bullet as a stimulant. 

|| Which prevail to-day, as they did nearly eighteen months ago, when the 
Commission found them —vide the recent reports of Messrs. Padfield, Stannard 
and Whiteside. 

1[ This one of the cardinal facts of the situation. The Congo State, knew 
everything, and denied everything. The Congo Government dare not publish 
the official records of its own tribunals in the Lower Congo. It dare not publish 
the official circulars of its Governor-Generals, and its District Commissioners, 
and its Gliefs de Zone, demanding, insisting, urging, in one continuous and 
incessant clamour, the production of increased quantities of indiarubber from 
the mass of officials throughout the country. 



80 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

what was going on, and when the members of this House protest 
against this state of affairs, which results in depopulation of vast 
districts, they are accused of being calumniators, or interested parties. 
Is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, then, a tissue of calum¬ 
nies? When one has read this Report, drawn up by men picked by 
the Sovereign King, and who do not cease to plead extenuating 
circumstances in favour of the Congo State, one can only conclude 
that *it would be difficult to calumniate this State! For, indeed, 
there is nothing which its most pitiless adversaries bring against it, 
which is not confirmed in this Report.* I will not say to the State, 
“ Courage, courage ”; I will say to the State, on the contrary, “ For 
pity’s sake, stop, become converted, become what you always ought 
to have been—an agent of humanity and civilisation.” 

M. Daens: —Very good; that is the truth. 

M. Golfs: —As far as I am concerned, it is as a Belgian, loving 
his country, which he desires to see respected; it is as a Christian 
that I protest, and I defy anyone to prove that I act in any other 
interest. But it has been the custom and the principle of the inter¬ 
ested adversaries of annexation, and the blind defenders of annex¬ 
ation, to slander their opponents. The blind partisans of a Colonial 
policy, and especially of a Colonial policy such as is practised by the 
Congo State, are the only ones who benefit from the present state of 
affairs. The Minister told us that the Commission of Reforms will 
shortly inform us of the result of its deliberations, f Until that 
moment comes, we must remain suspicious, and I reserve to myself 
the right of renewing the discussion. The information published in 
the Press, with regard to the kind of reforms which the Commission 
proposes to be applied at first, is not calculated to quieten us, and 
would seem to show a hostile spirit against religion. Another cause 
we have for suspicion is the way in which the Commission of Reforms 
is constituted. 

M. Woeste :—You are stating things of which you have no knowl¬ 
edge, and which are devoid of all foundation. 

M. Colfs: —Have the missionaries been excluded from the Com¬ 
mission, and is that untrue? 

M. Woeste: —I say that what is absolutely inaccurate is that the 
Commission has been imbued with the spirit of which you speak. 
You ought not to make such charges without having the proof in 
hand. 

M. Colfs: —We shall see what the Commission will decide, but I 
now take note, and no one can deny the fact, that the missionaries 
have been excluded from the Commission, and that, on the other 
hand, representatives of accused Companies have been incorporated 
therein. J 

M. Woeste:—T he missionaries were excluded therefrom as you 
and I were excluded! 

M. Colfs :—As you and I! It is very curious to see a Commission 
of Reforms constituted, from which the most impartial elements are 
excluded, those who have been accused, without being allowed to 
defend themselves, and whose only object is civilisation, without 

* Precisely. 

t Not if the Sovereign of the Congo State can help it! 

$ A.B.I.R. and Kasai. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES. 81 


any thought of self-interest—that is recognised by all, even by the 
Protestants—when, on the other hand, are included representa¬ 
tives of Companies accused and duly convicted of abominable crimes. 
And to them are added the officials who have been the representatives of 
the policy so completely condemned in the Report!* 

Already the Commission of Inquiry has failed on three different 
points to carry out its mandate. 

It declined to investigate what was taking place in the Domaine 
de la Couronne; it accused unjustly, and accepted as true, without 
counter-inquiry, without even hearing the interested parties, charges 
against our gallant missionaries. Finally, it omitted a point of cap¬ 
ital importance. 

It has not made the slightest allusion to the most redoubtable 
obstacle which civilisation encounters on the Congo, viz., the immo¬ 
rality which flaunts itself publicly and unrestricted, which often 
filters through from the corrupting European to the corrupted black, 
drying up in both the resources of physical and moral life, affecting 
the interests of the native peoples, f 

To the homage which M. Verhaegen rendered yesterday to our 
Catholic missionaries, I will add two passages from a Conference 
given in Brussels by Commandant Lemaire:— 

“ In order that a colonial enterprise shall succeed, it is necessary to attach 
thereto men who only seek satisfaction in the accomplishment of duty, and 
whose only object is to serve their country, without other thoughts. In this 
respect, although I am an unbeliever, I have always admired the missionaries, 
and have never understood the attacks to which they were subjected. . . . 

I think that no class of Society has the gift of producing perfect colonisers, 
but, without suspecting the good faith of the members of the Commission of 
Inquiry, I think they made a mistake, and that they were badly informed on 
the subject of the missionaries.” 

I regret that the Minister had not a word to say in defence of our 
courageous missionaries, the civilising element recognised by unbe¬ 
lievers as the best and the most active and disinterested of all. I 
hope that the deliberations of the Commission for Reforms will have 


* Precisely, slavers called in to legislate against the new slave trade, 
t If but one tithe of the erotic abominations prevalent on, the Congo could 
be written down here, people would stand aghast. To deal in specific cases 
would be possible only in the columns of a medical journal, but one or two 
general evils may be touched upon. One of them is, undoubtedly, the spread 
of venereal disease. No more eloquent passage on this subject has, probably, 
been penned than that contained in the Rev. Dugald Campbell’s letter to Mr. 
Fox-Bourne, on May 14, 1904. Mr. Campbell has laboured for thirteen con¬ 
secutive years in the Katanga country:— 

“ The treatment of the down-trodden Congolese, since State occupation, has 
brought about a moral and material degeneration. Through the gross and 
wholesale immorality, and forcing of women and girls into lives of shame, Af¬ 
rican family life and its sanctities have been violated, and the seeds of disease, 
sown broadcast over the Congo State, are producing their harvest already. For¬ 
merly, native conditions put restrictions on the spread of disease, and localised 
it to small areas. But the 17,000 black Congo soldiers, moved hither and 
thither to districts removed from their wives and relations, to suit Congo policy, 
must have women wherever they go, and these must ^e provided from the dis¬ 
trict natives.” 

Sodomy, wffiich, in the opinion of the most experienced missionaries, was 
totally unknown in the Congo, has been introduced by the European into the 
A.B.I.R. Concession’s territories, and doubtless elsewhere, and the practice is 
often resorted to upon the people by the sentries at the point of the gun for 
their edification, as also public incest, and other outrages. 


S. Doc. 139, 59-2-6 




82 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

a more serious result than those of the Commission of Control, in 
which the missionaries were included, but whose labours were kept 
so secret that, five or six years ago, the Mouvement Antiesclavagiste 
sceptically asked for news of it—news for which we are still waiting. 
Is it possible that it never sat at all? * These facts justify our sus¬ 
picion. I cannot vote the Resolution standing in the name of M. 
Beernaert, because, on the one hand, it is conceived in altogether too 
general terms, and appears to approve too vaguely of what has 
taken place on the Congo, and, on the other hand, it seems to admit 
in advance, as adequate for the needs of the case, the proposals for 
reforms which will be the outcome of the deliberations of the Com¬ 
mission, a Commission which has been constituted in an undoubt¬ 
edly systematic manner, and from which the essential element has 
been excluded, namely, the missionary element. As for the Resolu¬ 
tion proposed by M. Masson and friends, I entirely approve of its 
first part, and cannot endorse it too emphatically, but I do not see 
the connection betw T en the premises and the conclusions of the Reso¬ 
lution, which point to the calling together of the Central Committee 
of the House to examine the pre-supposed project of annexation. 

M. Masson: —No, no. 

M. Janson :—The question is entirely reserved. 

M. Colfs: —We must first of all see clear in all that is going on 
in the Congo. We must have all the light possible, and, before 
sitting down, let me say again how infinitely I regret that the name 
of Belgium has been mixed up with the atrocities committed in 
the Congo. I hope the Government will intervene at last, and 
seriously, by refusing to allow its officials and its officers to go to 
the Congo, and thus compel the Congo State to bring about reforms 
which we have the right to demand. 

The Speaker : —M. Lorand is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. LORAND. 

M. Lorand: —Gentlemen, if my policy included any sentiments of 
personal vanity, or even of amour propre , it would be easy for me, 
at the present moment, to give myself the bitter satisfaction of 
placing side by side the speeches which I have made on the Congo 
in this House for more than twelve years, the replies made to 
them by the Government, and the text of the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry named by the Congo State itself. 

M. de Smet de Naever (Premier and Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer) :—Notably your speech on the railway! 

M. Bertrand: —Do not try to de-rail the debate (laughter). 

M. Lorand:— We will speak of the railway when you choose; 
but the railway is not in question to-day. The object of this de¬ 
bate is the general condition of the Congo State. To-day we see 
officially confirmed all the charges which we have felt ourselves com¬ 
pelled to bring, not Soy our good pleasure—rest assured of that— 
because I fail to see what a Belgian politician can have to gain by 


* The speaker is, perhaps, referring to the farcical “ Commission for the 
Protection of the Natives,” which was instituted by the Congo State after the 
first revelations of its hideous policy came to hand, in order to lull public 
opinion. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 83 

incurring the hostility of the Congo State, and each of us must see 
very clearly what there is to lose by it—but because it was for us a 
duty. As links ever closer and closer were being forged between 
the Congo State and Belgium, it was impossible for men who have 
the. interest of our country at heart, of its moral responsibility, and 
of its honour; it was impossible, I say, for them not to bring facts 
such as those we have pointed out for long enough, before the 
House, and not to ask the Government to act, in order to prevent 
their renewal, and to profit by the relations which it has, necessarily, 
with the Congo State, daily relationship, to bring about a change 
in the policy of that State. We were met with blank denials. We 
were told that there was nothing to complain of; that what we 
brought before the House had no significance, or was quite untrue. 
Then, the facts having multiplied themselves, having been confirmed, 
having spread about, we were told that individual crimes took place 
in the Congo as elsewhere, abuses as in Belgium. We were told that 
these abuses were carefully suppressed, and the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer added that every time they were brought to the notice 
of the State they were deferred to the Tribunals, w T hich were ex¬ 
tremely severe; but that, however great the severity, it fell short 
of the ardent desire of the Congo State to suppress such actions. 
On this point, it is merely necessary to examine the Report of the 
Commission of Inquiry, in order to find that what was told us was 
untrue; that the abuses had not been suppressed; that not one abuse 
in a hundred had been punished; that the impunity assured to their 
authors was, in the majority of cases, the work of the Congo State 
itself, owing to the difficulty placed in the path of the Judiciary, 
and that the abuses continue necessary and frequent, because they 
are the result of the system of government adopted by the Congo 
State. This is what we always maintained. What we have always 
fought is the system of exaggerated exploitation adopted by the 
Congo State. This fact is now established without possible doubt 
by the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. It confirms officially 
everything which we have already made good in the eyes of every 
impartial man, and, in the course of the reiterated interpellations 
which I myself brought forward here with my friend Vandervelde, 
basing ourselves upon fragmentary information, it is true, but some 
of which possessed, even then, characteristics of undeniable au¬ 
thenticity, since it referred to the sentences inflicted by the Boma 
Courts. 

One of the things which we have been claiming for several years, 
and which w T e have never been able to obtain, is that the Government 
should hand over a collection of the judgments rendered by the Court 
at Boma with regard to abuses upon natives, in order that we should 
ascertain the importance of the abuses, and the manner in which they 
were suppressed. We know also, from the Report of the Commission 
of Inquiry, that the whole system of impositions established by the 
Congo State has been declared illegal by the Boma Court, and that 
for years without end these odious claims and imposts, which have 
led to so many crimes^ have been applied without law, without limita¬ 
tion, in an absolutely arbitrary manner, and that it was only after the 
Court had drawn attention to the fact, in passing judgment, that the 
law of forty hours was drawn up, a law which, as the Commission 
admits, is, moreover, not applied. All this is henceforth incontest- 


84 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. 

able; it is all contained in the report. The impartiality of the Com¬ 
missioners has been praised; everybody is agreed on that. When 
Congo affairs are being discussed, it is necessary in every case to give 
much homage, to begin by rendering homage! (Laughter on the 
extreme left.) Well, it is with sincerity, and outside all convention¬ 
ality, that I also render homage to the impartiality and to the con¬ 
scientiousness of the Commissioners, and also to the extreme prudence 
which has characterised their conclusions, to the extreme diplomacy 
of their language. Indeed, it would have been difficult to wrap so 
many grave facts, so many crying abuses, in more lenient terms. If, 
notwithstanding all this, the facts pierce through the eulogium of 
style, if the abuses appear on every page, despite these flowers of 
rhetoric, it is certainly not because the editors of the story have not 
taken the trouble to present them in the happiest way possible for the 
Congo State. We must take account of this when we recall the report, 
and it is perhaps this very fact which increases its gravity. When, 
notwithstanding all the platonic precautions taken by the editors of 
the Report, notwithstanding the care which they have always exer¬ 
cised to put things in the least disagreeable way possible for the 
Congo State, one goes to the rock bottom of things, one is compelled 
to recognise that the admissions which have been made are of extraor¬ 
dinary gravity, and one cannot say otherwise than that the Report of 
the Commission of Inquiry is an overwhelming indictment for the 
Congo State. (The Premier dissents.) It pleases you, sir, to deny 
once again, notwithstanding the evidence. Very well, since you wish 
it, since your attitude compels it, we will take, point by point, the 
admissions of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, at least so 
far as it is concerned with the matter of supreme importance—the 
outrageous exploitation of the natives. We will place each point in 
full light, discussing the text of the Report itself. We will see, after 
that, if you can still go on denying. M. Cattier—who is an upholder 
of colonial policy, a moderate man, and a royalist, who has, therefore, 
all the qualities necessary to escape suspicion in your eyes—how did 
M. Cattier proceed, in order to publish his book, which, as you observe, 
has caused a great impression, and which has been, one may say, a 
tremendous blow to the Congo State, a blow from which the Congo 
State is still suffering—he contented himself with taking, one by 
one, the admissions of the Commission of Inquiry, classifying them, 
giving them head-lines, adding a few explanations, which give to 
them the real significance which they possess. And it was then that 
the Report appeared in the light of a veritable indictment; a formi¬ 
dable act of accusation, whose significance no one has dared to contest; 
and it has been recognised that this indictment was simply the obvi¬ 
ous truth, and our accusations, which are described as systematic 
exaggerations, and which certain persons dared to call caluminous, 
pale before those of the Commission of Inquiry. 

Gentlemen, if there is one thing with which I have reproached 
myself sometimes, in respect to my attitude towards the Congo State, 
and its policy, it is perhaps that I have not done all my duty, that my 
attitude towards it was characterised, not by too much severity, but 
by too much indulgence. At one time, indeed, it had become difficult 
for us in this House, and also in the Press, to refer with any utility 
at all to Congo affairs, without being immediately accused by the 
thousand voices of the Press, and by our colleagues themselves, of 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 85 

criticising systematically and passionately, and of desiring, above all, 
to attack the King. Of course, people took care to abstain from dem- 
onstrating what interest I, for instance, could have in attacking the 
Kmg. Do you think, then, that I am imbued with a personal hatred 
against the King? Have I ever taken, in any question, an attitude 
which justifies the attribution to me of malignancy and systematic 
belittling towards anyone at all? Have I ever agitated for a change 
in the form of Government which is accepted by the nation? You 
know, however, that I have never shrunk from putting forward ideas 
which I thought right, and you should admit that, in this matter of 
the Congo, I was obejdng the voice of my conscience; that I limited 
myself to certain facts, which are true, which are now proved to have 
been true, and to which you opposed denials whose falseness is to-day 
demonstrated. But it is certain that, at a given moment, some years 
ago, we were, perhaps, wrong not to speak emphatically enough about 
the Congo. The Congo affairs had become in Belgium what the 
Dreyfus affair had become in France, and one could no longer speak 
freely on the subject, without being immediately accused of being an 
accomplice of the foreigner, without being charged almost of treach¬ 
ery towards Belgium for the benefit of some treasonable syndicate or 
other, created by Liverpool merchants (laughter on the left). When 
we asked for an explanation on the subject, and the responsibilities 
which were being incurred by the Congo State, we were told that the 
Congo State was a foreign State, from which we had the right to ask 
nothing, and with which we had nothing to do. But when it was a 
question of disassociating ourselves from the moral liabilities incurred 
by this foreign State, we were accused of being anti-patriotic, of 
attacking a Belgian work, and being accomplices of the foreigner and 
Liverpool merchants! It is precisely a repetition of what took place 
in France during the Dreyfus affair. The systematic and, often 
enough, not disinterested defenders of the Congo State—we know it 
to-dav, now that there has been revealed to us the working of the 
Press Bureau of the Congo State—identified, moreover, in order to 
suit their own case, persons and things that ought not to be identified. 
It is thus that I have heard stated and repeated that the very honour¬ 
able Mr. Fox-Bourne, Secretary of the English Aborigines Protection 
Society, was as honourable as anyone amongst us, that he was exclu¬ 
sively and obviously influenced by humanitarian considerations, and 
that very great importance should be attached to the charges brought 
by him. As for Mr. Morel, who has been represented as the Liverpool 
merchants’ man, the licensed calumniator of the Congo State, and 
whom our jingo Press has treated with the same harshness as was 
exhibited in France towards the defenders of Captain Dreyfus, the 
information which I have been able to gather about him, from a large 
number of prominent colonials, agree in representing him as an 
extremely honest man, and thoroughly convinced. This information 
has convinced me that the Secretary of the Congo Keform Associa¬ 
tion is truly moved by a humanitarian, earnest and elevated idea, 
guided by the interest of freedom of commerce, and the salvation of 
the natives, whom he saw handed over to the horrors of forced labour. 
It is a curious thing, when we hear so much about Liverpool mer¬ 
chants, that the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce should have as its 
President the Consul for the Congo State, the owner of the steamship 
company which plies between Belgium and the Congo, and who is a 


86 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

notorious Congophile.* It is no longer possible, to-day, to talk to us 
about Liverpool merchants, f There can be no longer any question of 
the charges attributed to them, charges accompanied by the most 
malignant insinuations. What we have got to face are the admissions 
of the Commission of Inquiry, appointed by the Congo State, com¬ 
posed of three eminent magistrates appointed by it. What are these 
admissions? I am not going over the prosecutor’s address, which has 
been made by my friend M. Vandervelde. 

M. Vandervelde: —I merely reproduced the passages which are 
to be found in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. 

M. Lorand Certainly, and that was sufficient. You were even 
very moderate, and I can easily add to those which you have quoted, 
and which will complete the picture which you have painted. M. 
Vandervelde exposed, in very moderate terms, but in a very complete 
and convincing manner, what are the consequences of facts now 
admitted, and no one has attempted, up to the present, to contest 
in any way whatsoever that which he said. It is true that M. de 
Favereau has spoken. He reproduced a certain number of old 
stereotyped plates, which have already served many times in less 
critical circumstances, and which he did not consider necessary to 
change in any way (laughter). M. Woeste, who is an excellent 
advocate, pleaded with much ardour, and with all the ability which 
can be placed at the disposal of a bad case. He pleaded on one side 
(renewed laughter). He told us, for instance, that everything can¬ 
not be done in a day; but who has ever said that everything could be 
done in a day ? Who has ever reproached the Congo State with not 
having done enough in a day? The Congo State has done much. 
Unfortunately, if it has performed very remarkable things from the 
military and material point of view, from the point of view of con¬ 
quest, and the occupation of an immense territory—and we have 
never denied these things; quite the contrary—it has, on the other 
hand, introduced and practised a system to which M. Woeste did 
not refer—an abominable system of outrageous exploitation of the 
natives (interruption on the right). It seems that this is still de¬ 
nied. Very well, we shall return to it. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer (Premier and Chancellor of the Excheq¬ 
uer) :—The Commission of Inquiry in no way condemned the prin¬ 
ciple of Congo legislation. It has admitted abuses. We disapprove 
of them, and the Congo State disapproves of them. 

M. Lorand: —If you knew that there were any, as you have just 
said, you would have been better advised to have said so earlier. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —We have never denied individual abuses. 

M. Lorand :—There are not only individual abuses; the abuses are 
the result of the system. 

M. Masson :—These abuses are certain; they are not denied. 

M. Claes :—They are born of excess of zeal. 

M. Lorand: —What are these abuses? The Commission of In¬ 
quiry is instructed to find out abuses, and it has done so. It has 

* The great Sir Alfred Jones, K.C.M.G., the “ friend of the African ”! 

t From first to last, “ Liverpool merchants ” have had no more to do with the 
agitation against the Congo atrocities than London, Bristol, or Gflasgow mer¬ 
chants. One Liverpool “ merchant ” has lent generous assistance to the cause 
of reform—that is what the whole story reduces itself to. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. 87 

found that they are the outcome of the system. It has endeavoured 
to plead extenuating circumstances, but is has not even attempted 
to defend the system. Thus, for instance, on the essential point of 
freedom of trade, the Commission of Inquiry has found that there 
was no freedom of trade in the Congo. That is a very grave fact, 
because it is a negation of the raison d'etre of the Congo State.* * * § 
The Congo State was created by the common consent of all the 
European Powers, to ensure two things—complete freedom of trade 
in the Congo, and the preservation of the native peoples and the 
betterment of their lot. This is not contested. Diplomatic subtlety 
might argue that the recognition of the Congo State was prior to 
the Congress of Berlin, and that the Congress of Berlin did not 
create the Congo State. It is none the less true that if Europe 
decided to recognise the existence of the Congo State, and decided 
to place the populations of Central Africa under its care, it was for 
the purpose of ensuring that the Congo State should preserve these 
people, should improve their lot, and should establish complete com¬ 
mercial freedom. 

M. Huysmans: —If commercial liberty were interpreted as you 
understand it, there would very soon be no room for Belgium in the 
Congo. 

M. Lorand: —But I have not yet had the opportunity of telling 
you how I interpret the application of commercial liberty in the 
Congo (laughter). I admit, however, that it is impossible for me to 
interpret it as the Congo State has done, because the Congo State has 
entirely suppressed commercial liberty. The Commission of Inquiry 
finds, in this regard, that the Congo State has appropriated for 
itself, or its concessionnaires, all the land in the Congo, that there is 
no trade possible in that country, and that under these conditions 
freedom of trade no longer exists, because the elements of trade do 
not exist, and no one can trade in the Congo unless it be the State 
and the State’s concessionnaires.f As you know, the Congo State has 
appropriated all the land, with the exception of the huts inhabited 
by the natives, and the gardens around them. J It itself exploits this 
land, or concedes it to companies, who alone have the right to exploit 
it. This system has also been adopted in the French Congo, it is 
said. Yes, but not in the same proportion, since a tenth of the land 
appropriated has been reserved to the natives. § But this system, 
which has been introduced into the French Congo by Belgians, came 
from the Congo State. These principles of spoliation and robbery 
were suggested, first of all, by a Frenchman interested in Belgian 
Colonial enterprise, and the forty concessions dragged out of the 
temporary Minister, by a French Colonial, in favour of so many 

* As originally ushered into the world. 

t Who do not “ trade,” but who, claiming the elements of trade—that is, the 
raw produce of the soil in the Congo forests—drive the inhabitants at the point 
of the bayonet to collect them. 

t The contents of which it claims as “ food-tax” ! 

§ On paper only. The reserves have not been delimited. Nor can they be. 
The whole talk of “ reserves ” is dishonest. Why, it would take as long as the 
duration of the concessions—thirty years—to delimit in any adequate manner 
an enormous territory, 600,000 square miles in extent, in much of which the 
white man has never set foot. 



88 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 

Companies, were obtained especially to benefit Belgian financiers.* 
This was a verj^ clever move. Mr. Morel has pointed out the ridicu¬ 
lous verdicts given by the French Congo Courts, condemning as 
thieves or poachers the natives who collected rubber in the forests, 
and the white merchants who bought that rubber from them! f 
These forests, where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years, 
perhaps, and from which they drew all their means of sustenance, 
belong henceforth to foreigners inhabiting Paris or Brussels; the 
natives can no longer collect anything within them, without running 
the risk of being treated as thieves or poachers! 

M. Masson : — Unless they produce titles, duly vised by a notary, 
establishing their rights of property X (laughter on extreme left). 

M. Lorand:— Yes, the argument which it has been"sought to draw 
from the absence of a title, duly vised by a notary, establishing the 
natives’ rights in the forests, was invoked yesterday by M. Woeste, 
to justify the acts of the Congo State, which acts the Belgian con¬ 
cessionaires of French Congo have merely imitated, and in order to 
maintain that the administration of that State had done the right 
thing by appropriating, as its private property, four-fifths of the 
Congo territory! Under these conditions, gentlemen, it is natural 
that the Commission of Inquiry was obliged to admit that there was 
no freedom of trade. It is even impossible for a business firm to 
become established in the territory of the Congo State without 
obtaining a concession* from the latter, or from the monopolist com¬ 
panies. Regions as large as ten or twenty times the size of Belgium 
do not contain a square inch of territory where anv trade can be 
established, where even a hut can be built, without this special per¬ 
mission from the Congo Government and its Concessionaire Compa¬ 
nies. In view of these facts, those who say that the Act of Berlin 
has been violated, and that freedom of trade has been confiscated, 
are speaking the absolute truth, because the Act of Berlin says for¬ 
mally that it is forbidden to confer privileges or monopolies of any 
kind within the conventional basin of the Congo. In practice, 
everything is there monopolised by the State and its partners. Even 
the missionaries are deterred from carrying on their own work. 
Certainly, gentlemen, I personally do not attach to the religious mis¬ 
sions on the Congo the importance given to them by some 'of our 
honourable colleagues, either in praise or in blame. The Commis¬ 
sion and M. Cattier have pointed out abuses in connection with the 
schools and chapel farms founded by the missionaries, and some of 
us would appear to have wished to limit the whole of the Congo 
question to the secondary issue of the defence or criticism of mis¬ 
sionaries, and of the abuses alleged to be connected with them; 
abuses which appear to me to be very similar to those Vhich have 
been found in Europe to exist in the convent schools, where chil- 

* This is an absolutely true statement of the case, and the French Congo has 
been reduced to bloody chaos, and French work in Africa besmirched, in the 
interests of the group of financial harpies who have fattened upon the Congo 
State, and in the political interests of King Leopold, who has hoped, by these 
means, to prevent any Anglo-French co-operation, to clear out the cesspool in 
iniquity which he himself has created on the Congo. 

f “ The British Case in French Congo” (London: Heinemann). 

t M. Masson here refers to the amazing proposition put forward by M. Woeste. 
See latter’s speech. 





CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 89 

dren’s work is exploited for the benefit of the community. But it 
must be recognised that these abuses are very small affairs when com¬ 
pared with those of which officials of the State and of the Compa¬ 
nies have been convicted, and that the missionaries have at least this 
to their credit, that their object is a religious object, and that they 
are not influenced by egotistical sentiments, and that, if they sacrifice 
themselves for a work, which personally I do not admire, but which 
at least is a disinterested and altruistic work, one must recognise 
their devotion, their abnegation, their altruism; and if any White 
men on the Congo at all are entitled to credit, it is those men. 

M. Janson :—You must not, however, forget the explorers. 

M. Lorand: —True, the explorers, those animated by the love of 
science, certainly deserve the most legitimate of all homage, but such 
explorers are rare, especially on the Congo. There are a very small 
number of them, and almost all of the officers who have been sent to 
the Congo were sent there to carry on war against the natives, to 
become merchants and imposers of taxes, interested by bonuses to 
increase, at all prices, the amount of. taxation. 

I was explaining that land is monopolised to such an extent 
on the Congo, that only recently I was reading that missionaries 
have sought in vain for a'lease of land upon which to found their 
missions, and that those who live there live often in strict depend¬ 
ence upon the State, which can deprive them of everything when 
it pleases. The appropriation of the land by the State is so com¬ 
plete that one can barely place foot upon the soil of the Colony with¬ 
out receiving the special permission of the Congo State, And this 
is what has become of commercial liberty. An attempt has been 
made to justify such an argument by the theory of State ownership 
in land, which from the point of view of law I consider to be a mon¬ 
strous jest. 

What! In order to justify this appropriation, without any prec¬ 
edent in history, learned juridical compositions are brought before 
us, emanating from eminent jurisconsults, arguing that, because we 
have a civil code in which it is stated that vacant lands belong to the 
State, that therefore the whole of the land, the whole of the forests, 
everything which constitutes the Congo territory, known or unknown, 
must belong to the State as private property, or can be exploited in 
the way which is known! That is, I repeat, a sorrowful caricature 
of law, whose formulas have been placed at the service of the most 
brutal robbery.* It is a ridiculous abuse of the similitude of words, 
to characterise totally different things, and the application of prin¬ 
ciples in circumstances for which they, were not created. Vacant 
lands in the Congo as in Belgium, when on the Congo, in view of our 
appropriation, everything is vacant! The gamekeepers of this prop¬ 
erty are the native sentries, of whom the Commission of Inquiry drew 
that picture reproduced by my friend, Vandervelde, and which is 
still, no doubt, in your.minds; these sanguinary brigands, stationed 
in all the villages, and instructed to watch the rubber output, hun¬ 
dreds of whom are killed every year in revenge for abuses^ exactions 
and crimes of all kinds which they commit! It is the Commission of 
Inquiry itself which, notwithstanding all its goodwill, was compelled 
to recognise the exactions commited by the black sentries, to the 


♦Precisely —Summum jus summa injuria! 



90 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

detriment of the native peoples, and which found the reprisals of the 
latter so natural that it considered the statistics of the murders of 
the sentries as the barometer of the atrocity of the regime to which 
the natives are subjected! And this abuse of forced labour, the 
source of all the evil—has it not also been said that forced labour 
is no different from the impost which exists amongst us? Taxation 
on the Congo is due to the governing power, as in Belgium, it is 
argued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, forgetting all the bases 
of our public law, actually told the House that the consent of the 
taxpayer had not to be asked. Did not M. de Smet de Naeyer come 
to us one day, and say: “ But if in Belgium you asked the assent 
of the taxpayer, in order to obtain a tax, the Belgian taxpayer would 
not pay his tax either,” and the Minister even added this atrocious 
sentence, which will, unhappily, remain attached to his name for¬ 
ever : “As to the natives, they are entitled to nothing.” 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — Have I then also atrocities to my debit ? 
You are travestying my words. I said that the taxpayer who pays 
a tax has no right to claim the countervalue of that tax. This is the 
case, strictly speaking, with the taxation in kind, or labour tax. I 
added that, notwithstanding this, the work was paid for. 

M. Lorand:— Certainly. If atrocities have become the rule on 
the Congo, it is thanks to all your complacency. As I shall show 
presently, it is thanks to your complacency that these abuses can still 
be committed on the Congo, and if the system continues, it will be 
your fault.* 

M. Anseele : — He is proud of it, the unfortunate man ! 

M. Lorand:— The natives were entitled to nothing, you said. For 
them, therefore, there are no rights. I have said, and I maintain, 
that that is an atrocious sentence. And a man has been found to make 
of that sentence a system, f The minister for Justice came here and 
told us that the Belgian Magistrate who had been at the head of the 
Press Bureau, revealed by M. Cattier, had not distributed the secret 
funds mentioned last week. That is understood, and, really, it is 
not unfortunate. But here we find a magistrate and Professor at 
the Free University of Brussels, who publishes, in a review of that 
University, an article denying to the natives, rights common to man ! J 
That they have not the rights of citizens we know, seeing that there 


♦This is demonstratably true. If the Belgian Government, which for more 
than ten years has been presided over by M. de Smet de Naeyer, had shown 
even a modicum of courage in dealing with the Sovereign of the Congo State, 
and had included fewer sycophants and place-hunters, the Congo State would 
have been compelled to place its house in order, and tens of thousands of 
human lives would have been saved. If Belgium takes over the Congo, she 
will take over a grisly heritage. It is impossible that a crime of so colossal 
a nature, and affecting such an enormous number of human beings, can escape 
a certain nemisis. That nemisis no doubt will be felt by all the Powers who 
have possessions in Tropical Africa, and indirectly by the whole world, but 
especially by Belgium. If fate decrees that Belgium inherits the evil crops 
which King Leopold has sown, then future generations of Belgians will have 
just cause to hold the memory of M. de Smet de Naeyer in bitter execration. 
That the sun will rise in the heavens to-morrow is not more certain than this. 

f This is, perhaps, the most notable utterance in the course of the whole 
debate; one which strikes at the very root of the Congo evil, and shows the 
extraordinary iniquity of the whole conception in the clearest manner. 

t This infamous article appears in the issue of the Brussels University 
Review for December last. The name of the author is M. Rolin, the indi¬ 
vidual who was at the head of the Press Bureau! 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIYES. 91 

are no citizens in the Congo, seeing that the natives are the subjects 
of a limitless absolutism, slaves of a system of human exploitation 
such as has been seen nowhere. But the native has the rights of a 
man; he has the right to live, the right of personal security, the right 
of personal property, the right to the produce of his labour, the right 
of coming and going, and we know that, in the majority of cases, 
even that right is denied to the native. We have allowed the Congo 
and the pernicious influence which the Congo has exercised on the 
minds of a portion of our countrymen, to reach the stage of denying 
to our black brothers—those brothers whom you gentlemen desire to 
Christianise; men who, it is true, have not our culture, but who are, 
for all that, men like us—those elementary rights of humanity, which 
we must on the contrary claim for every human being. 

M. Beernaert :—It is abominable! 

M. Lorand: —And then, on the pretext that in certain Belgian 
provinces the corvee still exists (it exists in the provinces of Liege 
and Namur), involving two days’ work per annum , and those who 
own a horse, for instance, one day’s work of that horse, to keep the 
roads in repair, we have been told that the same thing was demanded 
of the Congo natives—that they were only asked to pay a tax in kind, 
or in labour, because they had not cash to bring to the receiver of 
taxes, and that it was justifiable to ask them for a “ little ” work, by 
means of the corvee , in exchange for all the benefits of civilisation 
conferred upon them! And this corvee of the natives has led to a 
system which M. Janson has just said, in an interruption,* is a dis¬ 
grace to our country. For our country, I repeat, because it is we who 
tolerate it. 

M. Janson: —We should clear ourselves from this responsibility 
(applause on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand :—Undoubtedly. 

M. J anson :—Let the disgrace remain on those who have committed 
or tolerated the acts which the Commission condemns (renewed ap¬ 
plause on the same benches). Belgium cannot assume this shame, 
and take it upon herself. That is our interpretation of patriotism. 

M. Lorand:— The tax in kind, and forced labour tax, which have 
been the means used to develop the colossal properties which the State 
has attributed to itself, or has attributed to Concessionnaire Com¬ 
panies, has produced appalling results. This is admitted by the 
Commission of Inquiry itself. For long enough this tax was imposed 
arbitrarily, without regulation, without law, without limitation, ac¬ 
cording to the pleasure of those whose business it was to impose it. 
The natives were, and this is the literal fact, taxable indefinitely, f 
We pointed this out on several occasions, Yandervelde and myself, in 
the interpellations which we made on the subject. The agents in¬ 
vested with these illegal and arbitrary powers, even from the point 
of view of Congo law, as defined by the verdicts of the Boma Courts, 
received a bonus proportionate with the tax they could wring from 
the native! The State denied that! Explanations were demanded 
by Germany. J The State openly lied to Germany in declaring that 
no sort of reward proportionate to the quantity of taxation imposed 


* Not reported. 

t They are still . . . except on paper. 

t In 1895. 



92 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

was granted to its agents. The truth was the exact contrary! * Van- 
dervelde has described the alterations which were made subsequently 
in the form of bonuses. It was, first of all, a direct bonus, then an 
indirect bonus, which became in time a pension, but a pension which 
the State is not compelled to pay to its agents, and which is propor¬ 
tionate to the output of their respective districts. The State also 
adoped at one time a system of good-conduct marks. I was able, by 
a dossier which was confided to me, to show that these so-called good- 
conduct marks w T ere represented by a sum of money, and that this 
sum of money was proportionate to the quantity of rubber which 
officials forced from the natives placed under them. It was still, and 
always a bonus, which had been dissimulated in order to be able to 
lyingly inform Germany that it no longer existed. Such a system 
was bound to bring about the most frightful abuses. It is self- 
evident that, without law, without possible control, so to speak, over 
such vast territories, in view of the obvious intentions of those who 
had organised and directed the system, the power placed in the hands 
of officials could not help degenerating into abuses of all kinds. These 
officials live alone amongst savages, subject to a bad climate, to the 
effects of isolation, to the effects of absolute power over these primi¬ 
tive peoples, to the effects of continual contact with them, and to the 
effects of diseases; they suffer from the dangers which threaten them 
every day, and, ceaselessly badgered and themselves interested to make 
their districts produce as much rubber as possible, they were bound 
to devote themselves to this task by every means. Abuses could not 
fail to take place, and the result of the bonuses was to lead to oppres¬ 
sion, and to a frantic exploitation of the natives, to atrocities, 
and to the crimes which have been disclosed, f 

M. Claes :—It could not have been otherwise. 

M. Lorand: —These facts are admitted by the Commission of In¬ 
quiry. In face of the declaration as to the illegality of the system by 
the Congo Tribunals, themselves, and perhaps also in face of the rev¬ 
elations which were made in this House, a law was finally decreed. 
It was a law prescribing a labour tax of forty hours per month, and 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer (M. de Smet de Naeyer) saw fit to 
assert that to impose forty hours labour per month upon the natives 
is not excessive. It is, how T ever, fairly severe. I do not think that 
these natives can work more than eight hours per day; if they do so, 
they do well. Forty hours, therefore, would represent five working 
days, and that would be more than sufficient to accustom them to 
work. J But is that all which is imposed upon them ? The Commis¬ 
sion found that the law of forty hours is everywhere and always 
violated. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —We disapprove of these violations. 

M. J anson : —That is fortunate! 

M. Lorand: —At last! Very well, then, go and ask the Congo 

* See the correspondence between Count Alvensleben, German Minister in 
Brussels, and M. Van Eetvelde, Congo Secretary of State, printed in full in one 
of the earlier whitewashing books published in the Congo State interests, “ The 
Congo State,” by D. C. Boulger. 

t And which continue. 

$ Or sixty days per annum; but the idea which this law seeks to inculcate for 
European consumption is, literally, forty hours per month, or twenty days per 
annum. 





CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 93 

State to suppress the general abuses admitted by the Commission, 
and tell the Congo State that if it will not do so, it will no longer 
receive any support from Belgium (loud applause on the extreme 
left and on the left). 

M. J anson :—There is the question! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The Congo State disapproves and sup¬ 
presses the abuses.* 

M. Lorand :—Tell the Congo State that it will no longer have our 
officers, no longer have our officials, will no longer receive anything 
from us, if these abuses are not immediately suppressed (renewed 
applause on the extreme left). Such should be the closing act to the 
Report made by the envoys of the Congo State itself ! Ah ! The 
Minister disapproves of these abuses ! Very well, then, what does 
the Minister think of the following extract from the Report of the 
Commission of Inquiry? 

“ In the majority of cases, the native must every fortnight journey two clays’ 
march, and sometimes further, in order to reach that part of the forest where 
he can find, in fair abundance, rubber vines. There the collector lives for a 
certain number of days a miserable existence.” 

It is the Commission of Inquiry, notwithstanding the palliation 
of its language, which admits that! 

“ The native lives a miserable existence,” and I think, Sir, that the 
taxes, even the corvees , imposed upon Belgian taxpayers, do not 
condemn thein to live a miserable existence, even for a single day 
(laughter). The Commission describes this existence to us:— 

“The native is compelled to build himself an improvised shelter, which 
cannot, evidently, replace his hut. He has not the food to which he is accus¬ 
tomed; he is deprived of his wife, exposed to the climate, and to the attacks of 
wild beasts. His produce he must bring to the State Posts, or to the Posts of 
the Company, and it is only then that he can return to his village, where he 
can only remain two or three days before the new demand is upon him.” 

Such is the result of the law of forty hours! The native has only 
two or three days a month of respite to be with his wife and children, 
to delve in his garden, to inhabit his hut, and then once more he must 
brave the dangers of the forest, in order to bring rubber for Bula 
Matadi, the Congo State, f Is it not abominable ? And the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry admits it. You disapprove. I am happy to hear it. 
You cannot fail to disapprove. But, then, square your actions with 
your wishes, and see that this stops for good and all, not with patch- 
work and mitigation, under the pretext that the Congo State lacks 
resources, when it does not lack resources to construct in Belgium 
palaces and arcades, or to buy royal domains (applause on the 
extreme left). The Commission of Inquiry, moreover, concludes on 
this point as follows:— 

“ The result of this is that, whatever may be his activity in the rubber forest, 
the native, owing to the journeys he has to take, sees the majority of his time 
absorbed by the collection of rubber. It is hardly necessary to point out that 
this situation constitutes a flagrant violation of the forty hours law.” 


* It approves, and it does not suppress. If it disapproves and suppressed; 
if the law were carried out, the yearly output of rubber would fall from 5,000 
tons to 500 tons. 

f Father Vermeersch gives, in his recent book, an instance reported by a 
magistrate in 1904, “who found near Lukafu, on the Kambove road, natives 
whom the tax of forty hours had retained, for thirteen months, far from their 
homes.” 



94 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 

The Commission itself admits that the essential law for the pres¬ 
ervation of the natives is violated in the most flagrant way, and it 
is said that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry are not over¬ 
whelmingly condemnatory of the system of exploitation adopted by 
the Congo State! And we are tofd of an abominable campaign of 
calumnies, with which we are associated! What else have we ever 
said? * We have said that the natives have been expropriated from 
their right to their own soil, because they had not got titles to pro¬ 
duce, and that, after having expropriated them from their land, they 
themselves had been robbed of their time, of their liberty, of their 
family life, of all social advantages, to compel them to work rubber 
in the forests, in the midst of dangers and privations, subjected to 
abominations of which I have given you some idea, and all this in 
the interest of aliens, who have taken their country by force, and 
have brought them nothing in exchange! For, in the Congo State 
“ budgets,” there are many items for the Army, for the Fofce 
Publique , for public work of a defensive or offensive character, to 
extend the possessions of the State; but there is very little to be seen 
inscribed for the improvement of the lot of the natives, and M. Cat- 
tier has been able to say that the natives have been given nothing, 
that our civilisation has not given them the least advantage in 
exchange for the crimes, the misery, and the wretchedness of the 
rubber tax! The proof of this lies in the depopulation of the 
Congo, f 

The Congo State was'created with a humanitarian and civilising 
object. Now, even in places where the State has been able to exer¬ 
cise in the completest manner its civilising action, that is to say, the 
Lower and Middle Congo, there is frightful depopulation. The 
Commission of Inquiry makes no bones about it. “ It is certain,” 
it says, “ that a large portion of the population must have disap¬ 
peared ” on account of the privations, on account of the diseases 
which usually accompany the advent of Europeans among primitive 
peoples; the population has disappeared, carried off by diseases to 
which the natives offer but little resistance, on account of the new 
life they lead; this life of forced labour, violent, fearful, a life of 
constant trouble, privation, dangers, unhappiness and misery, in 
which garb our civilisation has manifested itself to them, and which 
prevents them from offering any resistance to sleeping sickness, 
smallpox, and other diseases, which Europeans bring with them 
everywhere, and which are, unfortunately, more destructive for these 
peoples than they are in Europe. This has happened more or less 
everywhere, you will tell me. It is true, almost everywhere the first 
effect of colonial policy has been to make a desert where it wished 
to civilise; but I do not think that this curse, which seems attached 
to it, has ever manifested itself in so terrible and so rapid a manner 
as in the Congo State.]; It is true that nowhere but in the Congo 
has the exploitation of the natives by whites been carried to such 
lengths. There are also other forms of tax in kind. The rubber tax 
exceeds them all by its importance, and the evils which it produces. 
Almost the entire revenue of the Congo is based on rubber, which is 
shown in the Budget at 16,000,000 francs per annum. 

* What else have the British reformers ever said? 

t And in the impoverishment of the survivors. 

"t The French Congo is running it close. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 95 


M. Yandehvelde: —Ivory, rubber, and copal represent from 93 per 
cent, to 95 per cent, of the exports. 

M. Lorand :—They represent three-fourths of the trade, and more 
than half the revenue. M. Cattier has shown in his book that this 
rubber tax is extraordinarily higher on the Congo than anywhere 
else. We have always been told, indeed, about what was taking place 
in other colonies, and what we have been told was not altogether to 
the honour of colonial policy. It has been said that elsewhere there 
are abuses, and this is not to be doubted. But elsewhere the abuses 
are generally individual abuses; elsewhere people protest against 
these abuses. In England, Germany and France, the Houses of Par¬ 
liament are called upon to discuss the claims of those who protest 
against the abuses committed in the Colonies. There is a Parlia¬ 
mentary control, which is exercised over the Colonies. We saw this 
again in France last week. The system which you have adopted for 
the Congo is such that only in this country is there no control. The 
amount of the taxes enforced in the Congo upon the natives is also 
without any possible comparison with that applied in other colonies. 
According to M. Cattier, the amounts represent in the Congo 53 per 
cent.* of the revenue, as against 15 per cent, in one of the neighbour¬ 
ing German colonies .... 

M. Yandervelde That is a maximum! 

M. Lorand :— . . . and two per cent, or three per cent, only 

in the other neighbouring colonial possessions of the Congo, f No¬ 
where has the system of exploitation of the native attained the propor¬ 
tion which it has attained on the Congo, t And it is not only Red 
Rubber, as it has been rightly called, which thus compels a million of 
men to forced labour in perpetuity—for such is the significance 
which the introduction of our civilisation has had for them, such 
have been the benefits they have drawn from it—there is also the 
corvee in food-stuffs, whose odious character M. Cattier has shown. 
The natives are obliged to bring these food-stuffs to the camps to feed 
the black and white personnel , the soldiers and their families, although 
we had been led to believe in official publications that each camp was 
surrounded with vast plantations of food-stuffs, which w T ere being 
continually developed, and which would serve to victual the camp. It 

* The proportion is, of course, infinitely higher than 53 per cent., for the 
simple reason that the published estimates of revenue and expenditure, which 
are all that the Congo State issues, do not include the revenues abstracted from 
the total revenues by King Leopold. The proportion is more like 75 to 80 per 
cent. 

t It is a very curious thing that neither M. Cattier, in his book, nor any of the 
members who took part in this discussion, appear to be acquainted with the fact 
that in none of the West African possessions of Great Britain is there a direct 
tax upon the people, except in Sierra Leone, where such direct tax amounts to 
five shillings per 'better-class hut per annum, and yields about £30,000, in a 
total revenue of £300,000. 

t For the simple reason that, with all their defects of detail, the policy of the 
Powers in Tropical Africa (excepting the Congo Basin) is a policy which aims 
at increasing the purchasing capacity of the African native, and consequently 
his prosperity—not necessarily for motives of altruism, but because such policy 
is the only rational object in founding tropical dependencies, of which the main 
idea is to create for home industries a market, such a market being only possible 
if the native is in a position to purchase from it—whereas in the Congo State, 
and to a large extent now in the French Congo, the policy pursued is a policy 
of force for the benefit of individuals, to the detriment of the native, and to the 
detriment of national interests. 



96 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPBESENTATIVES. 

seems that this was not true either, and that it is the unfortunate 
natives who must bring in their food-stuffs to the camp, and that the 
whole population is affected up to distances of seventy and eighty 
kilometers! And under what conditions? It is precisely, as M. Cat- 
tier points out, as though the taxpayers of Bruges and Waremme— 
assuming that in our country there were neither roads, railways nor 
plantations, and that Belgium was still in a sixth-century condition— 
were compelled to bring in, three times per month, five loaves each 
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Brussels (laughter on the 
extreme left). Add to this the frightful porterage system which is 
imposed on the natives, and the abuses and consequences of which 
have just been denounced the French House—this porterage has 
completely depopulated certain regions, and the Commission of 
Inquiry, notwithstanding the excessive prudence with which it 
produces its conclusions, demands an immediate solution of this 
regime , without, hotvever, daring to ask for its total suppression.* 
Note also the recruiting for the army and public works. You have 
been shown how it has been carried out on a system of bonuses, calcu¬ 
lated like the price of cattle, according to the size and the age of 
the recruits, who were, moreover, marched in chains furnished by the 
State.f But I prefer to confine myself to the great fundamental 
iniquity from which all the abominations and the horrors spring, 
and at the same time all the resources of the State—the rubber tax. 
Let us pass in review the means of coercion employed to compel the 
native to furnish the tax. It is to ensure its payment that these 
brigands, who are called Sentries, are sent out to different villages, 
to compel the natives to furnish the requisite quantity of rubber. 
These sentries are themselves accompanied by a band of other rascals, 
w T ho rob the natives, not only of their wives, but of all they possess, 
and live on rapine, exactions and pillage. These black sentries and 
their bands of scoundrels in this way place the unfortunate natives 
under the heel of an abominable tyranny, and the natives are driven 
to assassination as the only solution, and I repeat that the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry was compelled to recognise that the number of mur¬ 
ders committed, owing to the oppression of the sentries, can alone 
give an idea of the mass of crimes of which the sentries have been 
guilty. 

M. Vandervelde: —We ought to be unanimous, without distinction 
of Party, to condemn such a system. 

M. G. Terwangne (Catholic) :—Who says that is not the case? 

M. Lorand: —So much the better. Allow me, my dear colleague, 
to congratulate you upon your interruption; this is the second inter¬ 
ruption which redounds to the honour of our colleagues on the right. 
After our honourable colleague, M. Beernaert, who said just now, 
with regard to so complete a negation of the rights of man, “ it is 
abominable,” here is another of the members of the majority who, 
when my friend Vandervelde asked that the Chamber should be 
unanimous in condemning such a system, interrupts to say, “ Who 
asserts that this is not so? ” 

M. Vandervelde: —We shall see when the Resolution comes to be 
voted. 

* So long as King Leopold is squandering millions in building forts on the 
Eastern frontier, filling the Lado Enclave with troops and war material, and 
occupying British territory, the ravages of the porterage system will continue. 

f See M. Vandervelde’s speech, first day’s debate. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 97 

M. Lorand :—These sentiments redound to the honour of Belgium, 
gentlemen, but we shall see presently if you will endorse your words 
by acts. (M. Woeste is seen to approach M. G. Terwangne.) Cries 
from the extreme left “ ’Ware wolf! ’ware wolf! ” Laughter on the 
left and on the extreme left—uproar.) 

M. Lorand: —It seems that the interruption of the Hon. M. Ter¬ 
wangne is somewhat distasteful to some of our honourable colleagues 
on the right, and I suppose at the present moment he is being made 
to understand that he must not commit any imprudence (protest on 
the right). 

M. G. Terwangne: —But nobody in the world would approve of 
the facts which you have just quoted (interruption on the extreme 
left—uproar). 

M. Lorand :—It is not only a question of disapproving of them, it 
is a question of ending them. Certainly you do not approve of them. 
You cannot but disapprove of them. But if you disapprove of them 
in the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer disapproves 
of them, and if you do not back you feelings by your actions, I have 
the right to say that your disapproval is merely platonic, and that 
you will participate with the Government in responsibility for their 
continuance. 

But, gentlemen, there is something more horrible still in the 
enforcement of this system of coercion, which some have dared to 
compare, by abusing the similitude of words, wfith the procedure 
which exists in Belgium to recover taxes. The Minister has reminded 
us that when a taxpayer does not pay his tax, he is coerced, and that 
the same thing might be done on the Congo. But what does coercion 
consist of in the Congo? It is, first of all, the presence of the sentry, 
who robs, violates, pillages, murders, and who often ends by being 
murdered himself; and when, despite all this, the quantity of rubber 
arbitrarily fixed is not brought in, further steps are taken, in the 
shape of what are called punitive expeditions. A punitive expedition 
has already been described, and I should not return to it if I did not 
wish to emphasise the deplorable effect Avhich such duties must exer¬ 
cise upon the officers of our army, who are called upon to direct these 
expeditions. You can judge from what I am going to read you, from 
the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, if M. Cattier was wrong- 
in referring to this aspect of the question. The Report admits “ the 
abusive employment of military expeditions of a war-like charac¬ 
ter ”:— 

“ Often,” it says, “ the written order handed to the Commander of the expedi¬ 
tion simply told him to recall the natives to a sense of duty.” 

Another Congolese euphemism, but the Commission notes that— 

“ The vagueness and the lack of precision of such instructions, and, in certain 
cases, the thoughtlessness of those who were instructed to execute them, have 
frequently haulhe result of slaughters which were not justified.” 

M. Janson :—It is, therefore, the penalty of death which is exacted. 

M. Lorand:— It is more than the penalty of death; it is pillage, 
massacre, and incendiarism, carried into the four corners of the 
territory. 

M. Vandervelde :—The Commission adds that these punitive expe¬ 
ditions fall upon the innocent as well as the guilty. 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-7 


98 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Lorand :—Precisely. Here is the passage in the Report of the 
Commission of Inquiry. You will see if I am exaggerating. It is 
concerned with punitive expeditions against villages which have not 
delivered a sufficiency of rubber, and whose inhabitants have fled to 
the bush. First of all, the women are tied up. This is another Con¬ 
golese expression, which I point out to you. “ Tied up; ” the capitas 
tie up the women. These are curious methods and, as for the women, 
sometimes it is forgotten to untie them, and they are allowed to die of 
hunger, as happened in the case of the 58 women of Banghi,* in the 
Upper Congo, and as happened in the Mongalla case—a very great 
number of women. As we said in a previous interpellation, the 
natives whose wives have been tied up flee. They are pursued by a 
black patrol, “ often not commanded by a white man, according to 
the regulations,” and then savs the Commission:— 

“ The. black soldier, left to himself, falls back upon the sanguinary instincts 
which the severest discipline has difficulty in suppressing. It is in the course 
of such patrols that the greater number of murders, of which the soldiers of the 
State are accused, have occurred.” 

And now here is how the Report of the Commission of Inquiry 
characterises a punitive expedition:— 

“ The order confided to the Commandant of the detachment was then drawn 

up in the following general way : ‘ N-is instructed to punish such and such a 

village.’ ” 

In the Congo the communal property of the native is not respected, 
but collective punishments are applied (laughter on the extreme left). 
I continue my perusal of the Report:— 

“ The Commission is aware of many expeditions of this type; the conse¬ 
quences have often been very destructive, and we must not be astonished if, in 
the course of the delicate operations, whose object it is to take hostages,t and 
intimidate the natives, a perpetual control cannot always be exercised to pre¬ 
vent the sanguinary instincts of the natives ”—of the natives in the service of 
the Congo State, note this well—“ from giving themselves free scope. When 
the order to punish comes from a superior authority, it is very difficult that the 
expedition should not degenerate into massacres, accompanied by pillage and 
incendiarism.” 

The text of the Report itself finds that it is very difficult that the 
manner in which taxes are recovered should not lead to pillage and 
incendiarism. 

“ Military action,” continues the Report, “ thus understood, always exceeds 
the object in view, punishment being in flagrant disproportion to the sin com¬ 
mitted. The innocent and the guilty are confounded in the same punishment.” 

Did we exaggerate? But the commission thinks it advisable to 
invoke extenuating circumstances for these Belgian officers, who, 
under the pretext of civilisation, are thus employed in spreading 
massacre, pillage, and incendiarism in the Congo territories. I will 
read you this passage also, as it is right to do so, but I will then 
ask you if other responsibilities are not terribly involved:— 

“ The responsibility for these abuses,” says the Commission, “ must not fall 
entirely upon the Commanders of military expeditions. Note must be taken 
in examining these facts of the deplorable confusion which exists still in the 


* French Congo. 

t “ Delicate operations, whose object it is to take hostages! ” When such 
“ delicate operations ” are conducted by natives against natives, they are called 
slave-raids, and Public Opinion holds up its hands in horror. The power of 
mere words is so very great! 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


99 


I pper .Congo, between a state of war and a state of peace, between adminis¬ 
tration and repression, between those who may be considered as enemies, and 
those who ought to be considered as citizens of the State, and treated according 
to its laws. The Commission was struck with the general tone of the reports 
relating to the operations referred to. Often, while stating that the expedi¬ 
tion was solely brought about by arrears in taxation, and without even making 
any sort of mention of attack or resistance on the part of the natives, which 
would alone justify the use of arms, the authors of these reports speak of 
‘ villages surprised,' ‘ energetic pursuit,’ ‘ numerous enemies killed and wounded,’ 
* plunder,’ ‘ prisoners of war,’ ‘ terms of peace.’ Obviously, these officers thought 
they were at war, acted as though they were at war, and that, indeed, is what 
their superiors intended.” 

It is there that the responsibility lies! 

“ in handing these reports to the supreme authority, what, in a general way, 
are the annotations inscribed on them by the District Commissioners? Among 
advice, or criticism, or technical military observations, blame or praise with 
regard to the incidents of the campaign, very rarely do they consider whether 
the use of arms was justified. Under such circumstances, we should be inclined 
to excuse subalterns who have not thoroughly understood the pacific character 
of their mission.” 

If extenuating circumstances can be pleaded for the subalterns, 
how infinitely graver becomes the responsibility of their superiors!* 

“ This position of affairs cannot be prolonged in the interest of the people, 
and in the interests of the officials of the State. The natives must not be 
exposed to being treated as enemies outside the law, and, on the other hand, 
measures must be taken so that officers who are conducting what may be accu¬ 
rately termed warlike operations, should not be liable to be hauled before 
fhe courts to explain these operations, as though it were a matter of an offence 
against the common law.” 

There are Courts of Justice on the Congo, although the organisa¬ 
tion of justice is deplorable, and but too often interfered wfitli by 
the administrative authority. The Report of the Commission admits 
this, and if, Sir (addressing the Premier), you had really desired 
to put an end to these abuses, it would merely have been necessary 
to ascertain the contents of the verdicts rendered by the Bom a 
Tribunals, in which those who are prosecuted for violence towards 
the natives constantly give as an excuse, or as extenuating circum¬ 
stances, the orders which they received from their superiors. This 
alone ought to have been sufficient to make you take action, and 
these verdicts alone exclude all idea of good faith, and every plea of 
ignorance on the part of the Congo Government, f 

* Yet such punishments as have been inflicted have always fallen upon the 
subalterns, never upon the superiors. 

t This is a point of capital importance, which provides the clearest indica¬ 
tion of the fore-knowledge of the Congo authorities, and determines their 
degree of culpability. The official records of the Congo Government examined 
by the Commissioners proved that the existence of atrocities, the prevalence 
of gross oppression, of crushing taxation, of the taking of hostages to stimulate 
the production of increased quantities of rubber, the sentry system, the chain- 
gang, flogging, repeated massacres—that all these things were known to the 
Congo State authorities, and that they had been perpetrated by agents, white 
and black, of the Congo Government. To the Congo State authorities, indeed, 
the Report of its own Commission contained nothing new, and every wheel and 
rivet of the rubber-producing machine of the Congo is controlled from Brussels. 
In view of the Commission’s explicit declaration that it was in the official 
records themselves that they found “ elements of appreciation which con¬ 
tributed to a far greater degree to form its conclusions than many depositions,” 
the contention that the Report came as a revelation to the Congo State authori¬ 
ties, is wholly untenable. What produced something like a panic in the offices 
in Brussels was the knowledge that the Commissioners were, if timorous, 
honest. That was the revelation!! 



100 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES. 

Instructions to officials are, indeed of two kinds, as was said the 
other day in the French House. Instructions No. 1 are drawn up 
for European consumption, full of beautiful humanitarian phrases, 
and suggestions of kindness and gentleness. Then there are orders 
No. 2, which are not meant for publication, but which tell officials 
plainly what notice they need take, in practice, of the humanitarian 
instructions drafted to humbug European opinion. . . 

M. Vandervelde: —Notably the circular of M. Wahis, as regards 
hostages. 

M. Lorand: —Precisely, and the circulars of the A.B.I.R., repro¬ 
duced recently in the Cashiers de la Quinzaine* on which were in¬ 
scribed the number of women taken from their homes, whom a sentry 
might detain, and the way in which coercion and the taking of 
hostages should be exercised, and the manner in which feeding hos¬ 
tages should be inscribed in the books, “ in order that the monthly 
statement should give the administrators an exact idea of the general 
operations of the Society” (sensation). All these circulars exist.f 
Those of the A.B.I.R. were recently published by M. Pierre Mille, 
in the Cahiers de la Quinzaine , and personally I have received con¬ 
firmation of them recently in a report which I hold. But amongst 
the documents which have come into my possession are others which 
are worth communicating to the House, because they give a good 
idea of the daily proceedings of the Congo authorities. Here, for 
instance, are two memorandums, written in pencil by officials of the 
Congo State:— 

“ Ndumby is authorised to go to Lakondue, to fetch a woman and a girl 
belonging to him, and who have taken refuge there.” Lusbo, 10th April, 1901. 
The Lieutenant (signed “Chenot”) (outcry). 

“ Klomoni is instructed to go to Lakondue to fetch two women, Galula and 
Makassi Moiqui, who belong to the interpreter Sebastian.” The Commissioner 
(signed Pimpurniaux). (Renewed outcry.) 

Here is another document, which is still more edifying. I shall be 
told, perhaps, that it is concerned with the preservation of the forests, 
and of measures to be taken to prevent their destruction! As you 
know, it is forbidden to cut the rubber vines. J This practice must be 
prevented, and we are now about to see the method adopted to do so. 
Here is the photograph of a document, of which, the original is in the 
hands of a person whom I know, and in whom we can have .every 
confidence. 

M. Vandervelde: —Who wrote the document? 

M. Lorand: —It is signed by an official of the State, a District 
Commissioner, whom I know personally ; who, moreover, is very well 
known, whose handwriting is known to me, and to colleagues to whom 
I have shown this document, and who, like myself, are perfectly con¬ 
vinced of its authenticity. It reads as follows: 

“ M. le Chef de Poste, 

“ Decidedly these people of Inoryo are a had lot. They have just been 
and cut some rubber vines at Hulk We must fight them until their abso- 


* First published in fhe West African Mail, then in “Red Rubber” (J. Rich¬ 
ardson & Sons, Liverpool), and finally made accessible to the French Public 
by M. Pierre Mille and Mr. Morel in “ Le Congo Leopoldien ” ( Cahier de la 
Quinzaine, Paris). 

f In my possession, for the most part. 

$ On paper. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPBESENTATIVES. 101 

lute submission has been obtained, or their complete extinction. Warn 
for the last time the people of Inoryo, and put into execution as soon as 
possible your project of accompanying them to the forest or else go to the 
village with a good trique.* When you arrive at the first hut, speak as 
follows to the owner thereof: ‘ Here is a basket; you are to fill it with 
rubber. Go to the forest at once, and if in a week you have not returned 
with lOlbs. of rubber, I shall set fire to your hut, and you will burn.’ 
The trique may be used to drive into the forest those who refuse to leave 
the village. By burning one hut after another I think you will not be 
compelled to proceed to last extremities before being obeyed. Inform the 
natives that if they cut another single vine, I will exterminate them to 
the last man.” 

(Sensation—outcry on extreme left.) 

You see it is clear, it is precise; we know where we are. 

M. IIoyois :—Who signed it ? 

M. Lorand: —Since j 7 ou compel me to tell you, the signatory is 
Commandant Jacques, the well-known “ Anti-Slavery leader ”! 

M. Anseele :—It is the King, indirectly. 

M. Lorand: —Such are the threats which he instructed his subor¬ 
dinate to make known to the natives, to compel them to “ make rub¬ 
ber.” Were they carried out? I do not care to inquire into it at this 
moment. I merely ask you to realise the mental condition of a Chef 
de Poste who receives such orders from his chief, the District Com¬ 
missioner, from the representative of the Government. What atten¬ 
tion can he pay, under such circumstances, to humanitarian regula¬ 
tions and circulars? I am not seeking now to prove whether specific 
atrocities were committed under these particular instructions; but I 
say that, when officials receive such letters, it is obviously impossible 
that they should give any consideration to humanitarian instructions 
published in the official Bulletins which M. Woeste brandished 
triumphantly before this House, and the ceaseless panegyrics of which 
are circulated in Belgium! What does this District Commissioner 
say in effect? The natives must bring in five kilos, of rubber every 
week—note the amount—or else hunt, strike, set fire, exterminate. 

Gentlemen, this is the system which has been prevalent hitherto, 
which will continue to be applied, because no remedy will be brought 
until the State is compelled, f Then, in comparison with the over¬ 
whelming testimony furnished by the Commission of Inquiry, the 
reform proposals are so vague and insufficient, would take so long to 
carry out; such care is taken of the financial situation of the Congo 
State, that one feels that, if the State does anything, it will do very 
little; and if the Congo State appointed a Commission of Reforms 
immediately after the return of the Commission of Inquiry, we must 
ask ourselves if this Avas not done in order to still further delay the 
moment when it will haA^e to bring about reforms.]; Purposes of delay 


*A trique is a flat wooden mallet, which is used to thrash the natives in some 
parts of the Congo, in preference to the chicotte, a whip made of hippopotamus 
hide. 

f Precisely. The “ State ” exists for pelf. Reform means loss. Hence no 
reform, except on paper. I repeat that, even if the reforms recommended by the 
Commission were applied, the yearly output of rubber would fall from 5,000 to 
500 tons. 

x Just so. Had the Congo State been sincere, action—prompt, striking, 
thorough—would have been taken immediately the Report of the Commission 
was received. 



102 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

ire but too often served by a Commission, and, as M. Vandervelde said, 
this Commission of Reforms has been constituted in such a manner that 
we can have no kind of confidence in its results. We see amongst the 
members appointed some of the high officials of the Congo State, who 
could not have been ignorant of the facts which have taken place, and 
for which they are responsible. We see, I think, among them also, 
one of the signatories of the instructions which I have j ust read. W e 
see among them the administrators of certain Concessionnaire Socie¬ 
ties, and notably an administrator of the A.B.I.R. To cut a long 
story short, apart from two or three Belgian magistrates, who have 
no special competence in colonial affairs, the Commission does not 
contain a single person able to represent the protest of outraged 
humanity, and of the rights of man, which have been stamped upon. 
I must, however, admit that one of our colleagues is on this Commis¬ 
sion, and that he is one of the few members of the Commission to 
whose independence one can testify without reserve. But 1 do not 
think that he has any special competence in colonial affairs, that he 
has studied in any special way this question, nor that he has played 
any important part in this Commission, on which he seems to have 
been appointed with the main idea of giving some appearance of 
satisfaction to the missionaries, who were carefully excluded there¬ 
from. 

That which involves the responsibility of all of us and the responsi¬ 
bility of the Government is the excuse put forward in order to prevent the 
radical reform of such a system, or only to begin to reform it in the dis¬ 
tant future, e. g ., that the Congo State is lacking in resources, when on 
the contrary its revenues are disgorged into the Domaine de la Couronne, 
whose mechanism the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself disclosed to us, 
revenues utilised in sumptuous works in Belgium, which the Belgian 
Parliament has declined to sanction. Take, for instance, the Arcade 
of the Cinquantenmre* which was constructed at a very heavy cost, 
and with extraordinary repidity, thanks to the intervention of gener¬ 
ous donors, who gave nothing, and who were merely utilised as screens 
to conceal the sovereign dispenser of the revenues of the Domaine de la 
Couronne. And this, be it noted, is a purely sumptuous monument,f 
for which Parliament had absolutely declined to vote any subsidy. 
From all this we come to the result pointed out by M. Cattier, that 
by indirect means the King of the Belgians, being at the same time 
Sovereign absolute of the Congo State, can cause public works to 
be constructed in this country, outside the consent of the House and 
the control of Parliament. 

M. Bertrand: —Nevertheless, Belgium will have to pay all the 
same! 

M. Lorand: —It has since been shown—M. Bertrand had demon¬ 
strated ^t, and I do not think his demonstration can be shaken—that 
not only does the Domaine, which exploits a fourth of the rubber 
region of the Congo, acquire in Belgium all this real estate, hotels, 
palaces, land, houses, purchases millions of francs worth of real estate 
from the King of the Belgians—a transaction which is quite incom¬ 
prehensible (because one asks one’s self in vain what may be the 
significance of the transaction which sells real estate belonging to the 

* Public monument erected to celebrate the anniversary of Belgian inde¬ 
pendence. 

f A glorious advertisement for King Leopold. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 103 

King of the Belgians to the Domaine de la Couronne of the Congo 
State)—that not only are the revenues of the Domaine de la Couronne 
drawn for this purpose, obtained by proceedings which I have indi¬ 
cated, but that, in addition to all this, loan upon loan is being piled 
up. As my friend, M. Janson, has said, the Congo State is controlled 
by no one, no publicity surrounds it, and one is compelled to make 
complicated calculations in order to obtain an idea of the total of the 
loans which have been effected. If one day the Congo State should 
be taken over by Belgium, we should have to begin by paying the 
whole of its debts. 

M. Janson: —And we are told that we have no interest in the 
question! 

M. Lorand :—We were, however, told that we should have nothing 
to fear on this score. When, in 1901, we relinquished the right of 
demanding from the Congo State any of its accounts, or any details 
at all, not even the communication of its Budget and its trade statis¬ 
tics, formal assurances were given to us in this respect. M. Beer- 
naert, who had reasons, perhaps, to be suspicious, demanded in 1901 
the immediate annexation of the Congo, to put an end to abuses which 
he must have known were possible. An official communication was 
then sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which it was said 
that it was not likely that the Congo State would embark upon a 
policy of loans calculated to reduce the value of the Colony. Once 
more this was a promise—the custom of the Congo State is to keep 
no account of such promises. Notwithstanding the specific pledges 
of the Convention of 1890, the Congo State had secretly, and without 
authority, borrowed several millions from M. de Browne de Tiege, 
and had ceded to him, in guarantee, an enormous slice of it& territory. 
Perhaps at that particular moment it was possible for the Congo 
State to plead necessity as an attempt to excuse so flagrant a viola¬ 
tion of the pledges undertaken towards Belgium. To-day, again, 
we have been promised that the Congo State will not be saddled with 
new T loans, and, notwithstanding this, loan upon loan is issued, not 
for the needs of the Congo, but for sumptuous works in Belgium. 
Therefore, gentlemen, when we are told that forced rubber labour must 
be maintained, and with it all the concomitants of horror necessary to its 
maintenance, on the plea of the unsatisfactory condition of the Congo 
State’s finances, the plea is in flagrant contradiction with the facts. 
This excuse of the necessity of forced labour to balance the revenue 
and expenditure of the Congo cannot be seriously made, and it is 
inconceivable that the Commission should have attempted to invoke 
it,* when we see in Belgium the beneficiary of the Domaine de la 
Couronne of the Congo State spreading himself out in the extrava¬ 
gances which are known. It is said that these extravagances are 
devoted to public and artistic objects, but they are none the less the 
product of the corvee , and the outrageous exploitation of rubber, 
which is depopulating Africa, and filling it with abominations, thus 
placing Belgium in a position which her honour cannot allow her to 
accept. 

What can we do, and what ought we to do? 

It is obvious that the interpellation of M. Vandervelde was indis¬ 
pensable. The attention which the House and public are giving to it, 


* This, indeed, is one of the incomprehensible portions of the Report. 



104 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES. 

proves it abundantly.* It was not possible for the honour of Bel¬ 
gium—it is from that point of view that I place myself especially in 
this matter—that this interpellation should not have taken place. It 
would have spelt our moral decadence, to use M. Woeste’s words, 
if a public debate had not taken place in this Chamber after the 
publication of the disclosures of the Commission of Inquiry. The 
report of the latter, indeed, has been a revelation for a certain 
number of our countrymen, and, perhaps, for a certain number of 
our colleagues. For us it has simply been the confirmation of what 
we knew, and what we had vainly denounced. But we have had the 
satisfaction of obtaining in this House at last a general reprobation 
of the abuses and of the proceedings employed in the Congo. The 
interruption of M. Terwangne just now shows, gentlemen, that such 
is your unanimous sentiment. M. Woeste alone has not uttered a 
word of censure. But what matter? This is a question of justice 
and humanity, and once more we can do without M. Woeste (laughter 
on the extreme left). We shall be told presently, no doubt, what we 
can do. What means of action have we on the Congo State? It is 
an independent and sovereign State. This State, it seems, must be 
intangible and sacro-saint in the name of Belgian patriotism, so 
long as there is a question of throwing light upon the consequence 
of its actions; but, the moment it becomes a question of asking it to 
account for its actions, this State becomes for us a foreign State, 
like all other foreign States! We are not allowed even to recall the 
fact that it was created by Europe, with a special object of civilisa¬ 
tion and humanity, and that the results of its administration are the 
exact opposite to those which its founders intended. Nevertheless, 
this State is so little a foreign State for us that when we point out 
the condition of affairs on the Congo, the Belgian Government 
hastens to defend systematically, and notwithstanding everything, 
all that takes place in the Congo, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
comes down to this House and reads us a speech which is nothing 
more than a repetition of all the communiques which the Congo Gov¬ 
ernment publishes in the Press, and distributes everywhere, even on 
the seats of the ivcigons-lits (laughter). On the other hand, it seems 
that our diplomatists abroad follow the lead of the Minister for For¬ 
eign Affairs, and proclaim that everything which is said against the 
Congo State is calumny, indulged in by evil people, animated by 
disreputable intentions.} Moreover, the Government continues to 
lend its magistrates, notably the magistrate who is at the head of 
the Press Bureau, and its officials, to the Congo Government, because 
the administration of that Government includes a large number of 
Belgian officials. Finally, the Belgian Government lends its officers 
in considerable numbers, so much so, indeed, that it wrnuld be impos¬ 
sible for the Congo State to continue its system of oppression towards 
the native population if the Belgian Government did not help it by 
furnishing it with a large number of its officers and non-commissioned 
officers, who are called upon to exercise in Africa, not the noble pro¬ 
fession for which they entered the Belgian Army, but the business of 

* It is significant of the utterly inadequate manner in which the London 
Press is represented in Brussels that a few insignificant lines only appeared 
day by day in British newspapers. 

f Notably in the United States of America. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 105 

rubber merchants and tax-gatherers, under the odious conditions of 
which I have informed you, according to the admissions of the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry. 

Well, to-day, gentlemen, the cup is full; it is overflowing. You 
refused to hear the indignant protests of the public in other civilised 
countries, and of independent individuals in Belgium; now you can 
no longer escape the movement of reprobation which is becoming 
universal. You can certainly no longer escape from it by saying 
that the charges brought against the Congo State are British calum¬ 
nies,. seeing that all the charges levelled at the Congo State have been 
admitted by the Commission of Inquiry as being the result of the 
Congo State’s own system of outrageous exploitation of the people, 
enslaved to produce rubber, fought and massacred when they did not 
produce it. What sanction are you going to give to these overwhelm¬ 
ing disclosures? I understand and I respect the feelings of those 
who recoil before the idea of denouncing to foreign Powers, signato¬ 
ries to the Act of Berlin, actions which constitute a flagrant violation 
of that Act, and which may provoke a new International Conference. 
But what I do not understand is that the Belgian Government, which 
is in daily touch with the Congo State, should not say to it, “ Enough ! 
You have pursued up to the present a system of whose consequences 
you have probably been ignorant, but which has led to a mass of 
abuses which you had not foreseen. To-day, these abuses are 
admitted; they are the result of the system adopted by you to draw 
the largest possible profits from the Colony. They are of a kind 
w r hich call for vengeance, and which cannot be tolerated. They must 
disappear immediately, and radically, and Belgium will not remain 
a single day responsible with you for a state of affairs recognised by 
the Commission of Inquiry. You shall have no more officers, no more 
magistrates, no more officials of the Belgian State, if you do not 
immediately make up your mind to alter radically an admitted situ¬ 
ation !” 

If the government is prepared to tell us that it will do this, I shall 
be the first to congratulate it for having accomplished, although very 
late in the day, its duty. But if this is not what you are going to 
tell us, gentlemen (addressing the Government), you will be gravely 
lacking in your duties towards Belgium in tolerating the continuance 
of the abusive system which we have demonstrated. You will have 
affected in the gravest way the honour as well as the interests of Bel¬ 
gium. (Loud applause on the extreme left and on the left. The 
speaker is congratulated by his political friends.) 

SPEECH EY THE PREMIER. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer (Premier, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
and Minister of Public Works) :—Gentlemen, the hon. M. Lorand is 
living in a fool’s paradise if he thinks that anybody is going to 
believe in the impartiality of which he boasted in the opening part 
of his speech. The honourable member told us that he had no ani¬ 
mosity against the King, or against his African work. Now, if in 
Belgium, from the very "first moment, there has been found a system¬ 
atic adversary of the "African enterprise, from the very first that 
adversary has been M. Lorand. 


106 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Flechet :—That proves that he saw clearly. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The Belgians had hardly set foot in 
Africa before the honourable member denounced the enterprise of 
our countrymen as being of evil omen to the mother country. 

M. Lorand :—I was not mistaken. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You are an anti-coloniser, an anti-colonial 
by principle, and, in consequence, I ask the House to receive your 
opinions with suspicion. 

M. Lorand: —My mistake has been to predict for twenty years 
everything which has happened (applause on the extreme left— 
(protests on the right.) 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —For my part, I intend to render hom¬ 
age at once to the colonial work accomplished in the Congo. First 
as regards the actual and immediate interest of our country. It 
cannot be denied that, without the Congo, we should be ten years 
behindhand in our economic expansion. Did not M. Lorand, as a new 
Cassandra, predict not so long ago that the construction of the Congo 
Bailway was an enterprise bound to fail, and to be the tomb of black 
workmen?* The honourable member even proposed, at a given 
moment, to abandon the enterprise. He was prepared to sacrifice 
the millions already subscribed to it by Belgium. Weil, we know 7 
what the Congo railway has become! And M. Lorand, with such 
errors to his debit, returns once more to-day to throw opprobrium on 
the Congo enterprise. 

M. Pepin : —You are seeking a diversion. What you are saying has 
no significance. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :— I have the right to examine, as the House 
has the right to ask, if we are in the presence of a critic sincerely 
desirous of enlightening himself, or of an adversary full of partiality. 

M. Lorand: —You can decide as you please. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Let us then discuss the point. I ask to 
be heard. Why did the hon. M. Lorand not speak to us of the abuses 
which have taken place in French and German Africa? (Interrup¬ 
tion.) Must all colonisation be condemned because abuses are com¬ 
mitted in the colonies? Must Belgium be judged from the contents 
of her prisons ? 

M. Teravagne: —Belgium will be judged from her Government, 
and that is enough ! > 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I do not fear the verdict. To listen to 
M. Lorand, it would really seem as though the Commission of Inquiry 
had painted the desolating picture which he has drawn for us, as 
regards the moral condition of that African colony. It would 
almost seem as though the honourable member has failed to read the 
Beport through. 

M. Lorand :—I have done nothing else but read the Beport. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— You displayed everything which related 
to abuses, which all deplore as much as you do. You systematically 
left in the shade, and in silence, passages where the Commissioners 
proclaimed emphatically the beauty and the grandeur of the Congo 
enterprise. My first duty, gentlemen, is to repair this omission of 
M. Lorand:— 


* It was, in fact, the tomb of something like 3,000 black workmen, but as a 
paying enterprise it has been a great success. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 107 


“ Let us say at once”—you may read this in the Report—“that in travelling 
on the Congo, and in comparing it involuntarily with its old condition, which 
one knows by the reports of explorers, the impression one has is that of admira¬ 
tion and astonishment. In these territories, which, twenty-five years ago, were 
still plunged in the most frightful barbarism, and which only a few white men 
had crossed with superhuman effort, the target at each moment for the arrows 
of hostile peoples; in these regions, where tribes, decimated by the raids of 
Arab slave-traders, fought one another continuously and unmercifully; where 
at each moment slave markets were to be met with, in which the purchasers 
pointed out and labelled the victims whose throats were to be cut, or the 
individuals they coveted; where the funerals of village chiefs were celebrated 
by atrocious hecatombs, whole villages massacred, and slaves and women buried 
alive; in this sinister and mysterious continent a State has arisen and become 
organised with marvellous rapidity, introducing into Central Africa the benefits 
of civilisation; to-day security reigns throughout this immense territory; * 
almost everywhere the white man who is not animated by hostile intentions can 
travel without escort and without arms ;t the slave trade has disappeared,$ and 
cannibalism is severely punished, retreats and hides itself.§ Human sacrifices 
are becoming scarce. Cities which rival our most coquettish sea-side resorts 
light up and animate the banks of the great river,J| and the starting point and 
terminus of the Lower Congo Railway; Matadi, where ocean steamers anchor; 
Leopoldville, the great fluvial port, with its active workshops, make us think of 
our industrial European cities. The Moyamba Railway, the Cataract Railway, 
constructed in the most hilly districts; the Great Lakes Railway, which pierces 
the heart of the Equatorial forest; sixty to eighty steamers which ply the Congo 
and its affluents; this regular service of postal communication, this telegraph 
line, which covers 1,200 kilos.; these hospitals, established in the principal 
centres; all these things, born of yesterday, give to the traveller the impression 
that he is travelling, not in barbarous Central Africa, unknown a quarter of a 
century ago, but in a country which has long been conquered by European 
civilisation; and one asks one’s self what magic wand, what powerful qualities, 
what heroic efforts, have been able to thus transform in a few years the face 
of the land. This impression becomes keener still when we see the mechanism 
already carried to such perfection by the State at work. With a small number 
of officials, the State has solved the difficult problem of administering, in an 
effective manner, its vast territory. Thanks to the judicious distribution of 
stations, the State has been able to establish contact almost everywhere with 
the natives, and very few are the villages which do not admit to-day the 
authority of Bula Matadi.** With all these stations, the furthest as well as the 
nearest, the Boma Government is in constant and regular communication. It 
is the sole centre whence reports accumulate from all points of the country. 
Periodical reports enable it to profit from the experience of its 2,000 agents, and 
its own directing influence is powerfully felt. By the instructions which it gives 
unceasingly to the principal officials, it impregnates all the districts with ideas 
which become the common programme of officials of all ranks. The common 
purpose appears everywhere.ft The central machinery of the Congolese organi¬ 
sation works with rapidity and precision, without halting, and without friction. 
The judicial establishment must be praised. Its finest title to glory is the popu¬ 
larity which the magistrates who compose it retain amongst the common 


* As testified by the Report itself! 

t Which means, since fighting is taking place more or less all over the terri¬ 
tory, and has been for the last ten years, that the white man is everywhere 
animated with hostile intentions. 

t As borne witness to by the Report itself! 

§ As borne witness to by the massacre of Yandjali two years ago, where a 
party of missionaries came upon Congo State troops cutting up and stuffing into 
bags portions of the dead bodies of the villagers whom they had slaughtered. 
Witness also the cannibalistic orgies of the A.B.I.R. rubber sentries. 

|| The inhabitants within forty miles radius of them being subjected, in order 
to maintain the up-keep of these charming centres of European vice (the Com¬ 
mission did not touch on that!), to taxation in staple food-stuffs, so crushing 
that “ in another five years, the population will have been wiped out .”—Vide 
Report of the Commission. 

** Which authority has brought them such untold, blessings. 

ft Rubber, rubber, rubber, all the day! 




108 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


people.* Do not let us forget, moreover, the considerable work accomplished, 
side by side with that of the State, by the missionaries of all denominations. 
With their comfortable buildings, their chapels, their schools, their fine planta¬ 
tions, their shops, they have in many places considerably advanced civilisation.” 

Such, gentlemen, is what the Report of the Inquiry has noted. 
Such the work which M. Lorand drags in the mud. On Avhat side 
is real patriotism? On the side of all those who, having founded, 
and pursued with unceasing perseverance, that admirable Congo 
enterprise, condemn individual abuses as much as M. Lorand can 
condemn them; or of those who only wish to see these abuses, to 
generalise them, in order the better to criticise the enterprise itself? 
(Applause on the right.) 

M. Bertrand : — It is the system which is condemned. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — I am in a position to inform the Cham¬ 
ber of an inquiry which has recently confirmed the testimony I have 
just read. Governor-General Wahis has recently closed a tour of 
inspection, which was carried out in the Congo State. He has found 
that the condition of the natives is satisfactory,! and two Protestant 
missionaries have testified before him—I mention this since some 
people appear to attach so much importance to their testimony—and 
stated that, in their region, which extends from the mouth of the 
Mongalla to Stanleyville, there is no complaint to formulate. J On 
the other hand, the hon. M. Verhaegen, who paid yesterday to our 
valient and devoted Catholic missionaries so well-deserved a homage, 
quoted the declaration of Monsignor Roelens, whose jurisdiction ex¬ 
tends to Tanganyika, and who says that he has only witnessed a 
single abuse in fourteen years, and that this abuse was remedied the 
moment it was denounced. The reprehensible acts and actions 
noticed here and there are, therefore, far from characterising a 
system. 

M. Vandervelde:— The abuses are the consequence of the system. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — They are not inherent to the system. 

M. Vandervelde Why, it is palpable. 

M. Lorand : — Absolutely so. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —One may always argue that abuses ap¬ 
plied are the consequences of such and such a system. Nothing is 
easier, when one wishes to attack a system itself, and the principles 
upon which it is founded. In the present case, the general conclu¬ 
sions of the inquiry do not bear that out, but, obviously, what remains 
to be determined is whether the organisation of the system should be 
modified-—I do not say to the extent of wholly suppressing abuses in 
a day, which would bring about a millennium on the Congo, but in 
order to reduce more and more these individual abuses. It is to this 
end that the Congo State is working ceaselessly, without it being 
necessary for us to intervene to press it to do so. 


* Especially, we may assume, those “ distinguished magistrates ” (vide 

Report) who, according to the Commission, look upon the seizure of women, 
and their incarceration in hostage-houses, as the “ mildest and most humane 
form of coercion.” 

t See Congo Reform Association’s organ for May, and Mr. Whiteside’s reve¬ 
lations in the Public Press. 

t Why? Because an Italian officer and gentleman has been in charge of it, 
and has declined to allow the natives of his district to be taxed out of existence.’ 
He has now retired from the Congo service—Captain Scardino. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 109 


M. Yandervelde: —At last, then, you admit that the abuses are 
the outcome of the system ? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I admit nothing of the kind, and I am 
certain that the House has understood me. Gentlemen, the question 
of porterage has been touched on, and that is one of the greatest 
difficulties which faces us in Africa. The porterage requirements 
were specially noteworthy in the Cataracts region, and, to the great 
benefit of the natives, a railway has been constructed there, which has 
suppressed this primitive method of transport. 

If Mr. Morel and his gang really wish to protect the natives . . 

M. Vandervelde : —Mr. Morel is an honest man, whom you should . 
not attack here. I challenge you to bring against him a single fact 
which tarnishes his honour. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You are getting annoyed too quickly 

M. Yandervelde: —There is a want of courage in attacking absent 
people. You would not dare to speak of any of us in the way you 
are speaking at the present moment. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: I fling you back your reproach. You do 
nothing else but attack the absent in your criticisms of the Congo 
State. Wait a moment until I explain myself. What I was about 
to remark was that the evils of the porterage system had been very 
much reduced since the Nile route had been utilised for the supplies 
consigned to the Lado Enclave. Now the British steamship compa¬ 
nies on the Nile are refusing to undertake the transport of this ma¬ 
terial, and the natives will have to begin once more their hard task 
of head carriage. 

Will Mr. Morel take up the defence of the Congo natives against 
the English steamship companies ? He would find therein an oppor¬ 
tunity for the exercise of his negrophile philanthropy.* 

* On this point, Le Peuple, of Brussels, of the 10th March, published the fol¬ 
lowing letter :—“ The Bahr-el-Ghazal: Mr. Morel writes us as follows — 

“ Sir,—In the Parliamentary Report of the Congo debate in the Belgian 
House, I note that M. de Smet de Naeyer, in referring to ‘ Mr. Morel and his 
gang,’ said: ‘ What I was about to remark was that the evils of the porterage 
system had been very much reduced since the Nile route had been utilised for 
the supplies consigned to the Lado Enclave. Now the British steamship com¬ 
panies on the Nile are refusing to undertake the transport of this material, 
and the natives will have to begin once more their hard task of head carriage. 
Will Mr. Morel take the defence of the Congo natives against the English 
steamship companies? He would find therein an opportunity of exercising his 
negrophile philanthropy.’ 

“ M. de Smet de Naeyer is somewhat lacking in humour. I do not need the 
services of my ‘ gang ’ in order to answer him. In the first place, it is the 
Anglo-Egyptian Government, and not the English steamship companies, which 
has closed the Nile route to material consigned to the Lado Enclave. M. de 
Smet de Naeyer would have been well advised to have said so; he might have 
added why the Anglo-Egyptian Government has taken this step. The reason 
of it is a very simple one. Congo troops have invaded Anglo-Egyptian terri¬ 
tory outside of the Lado Enclave, and have established themselves therein, by 
order of the Sovereign of the Congo State. The British Government has on sev¬ 
eral occasions requested the Congo troops to withdraw. They have not done so, 
their officers acting under the direct orders of the Sovereign of the Congo State. 
Losing patience, the Anglo-Egyptian authorities have now closed the Nile route 
to the Congo State. I have no intention of discussing here the question at issue 
between the British Government and the Sovereign of the Congo State on the 
subject of the Bahr-el-Ghazal; I have dealt with it elsewhere. But I note that, 
in this respect, the declarations of M. de Smet de Naeyer are quite as remarka- 




110 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Lorand:— I am convinced that you will be satisfied. Every 
time that abuses take place in English colonies, there have always 
been found, and there always will be found, honourable men in 
England to protest, and to obtain, through the action of public 
opinion, the reform of such abuses, and it is to the credit of England. 

M. Delveaux : — This takes place in all countries. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Quite so. England has not the mo¬ 
nopoly of philanthropic work, and I do not think that our country is 
on the last rung of the ladder in that respect. But M. Lorand is 
filled with good-will towards foreigners who attack us, whilst he 
is excessively severe on Belgians who are working to the accomplish¬ 
ment of an international enterprise, or who defend it. 

M. Lorand : — The society created in England to protect the Congo 
natives has always protested against abuses which have taken place 
in English colonies, and the Government of the Congo State has only 
found a single defender in the House of Commons; that defender 
being Mr. Chamberlain, the man of the Transvaal War, of Chinese 
labour, and the concentration camps.* 

ble as many others made by him in the course of this debate. In the first place, 
if the Nile route is now closed to the Congo Government, this is wholly due to 
the incomprehensible policy of the Sovereign-King in the valley of the Nile. 
Upon him, and upon him alone, falls all the responsibility of this policy. In the 
second place, M. de Smet de Naeyer is not well inspired in seeking to equivocate 
on this specific subject. The policy of the Sovereign King in the valley of 
the Nile has already caused the loss of thousands of human lives—let M. de 
Smet de Naeyer refresh his memory by reading over the debates of the Belgian 
House in 1903. And what is the explanation of this policy? What profit can 
Belgium draw, if one day she takes over the Congo, from the sterile territory 
which is called the Lado Enclave? Why has the Sovereign King been filling, 
for years past, the Lado Enclave with troops and ammunition of war? Why 
is he spending the revenues of the Congo State in constructing armed forts 
therein? What does he wish to do there? Is he seeking a quarrel with Eng¬ 
land? If not, what is his object? It is really amusing for M. de Smet de 
Naeyer to suggest that I should protest to the Anglo-Egyptian Government, 
because it has adopted a measure rendered imperative by the policy of the 
Sovereign King, when that policy has piled up masses of dead in the Rubi- 
Welle region, along the Buta-Libokwa-Nile route; a policy which, as the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry recognised, is threatening the natives with extermination. 
If it be true, which I strongly doubt—because I do not believe that the Anglo- 
Egyptian authorities have ever allowed the transport by British vessels on the 
Nile of munitions of war for the Lado Enclave—that porterage on the Congo- 
Nile route was abandoned from the time that the English allowed material for 
the Lado Enclave to be transported via the Nile, it is obvious that if, now that 
England is compelled by the policy of the Congo State to withdraw this privi¬ 
lege, the Congo State intends to subject once more the Congo natives, inhabit¬ 
ing the region crossed by the Nile route, to an intensive porterage, the entire 
responsibility thereof falls upon the Sovereign King, and upon no one else. I 
rely upon your courtesy to publish this letter, and with anticipated thanks, 

“ I am, 

“ Yours faithfully, 

(Signed) E. D. MOREL, 

“ Hon. Sec., Congo Reform Association.” 

The recently-concluded Anglo-Congolese territory clears King Leopold and 
his myrmidons, bag and baggage, from the Bahr-el-Ghazal, with the exception 
of the small Lado Enclave. It is a great solace for the Congo natives. 

* It is hardly accurate to say that Mr. Chamberlain has defended the Congo 
State in the British House of Commons. He once made an allusion to the 
Congo, which he may since have looked upon as unfortunate, in connection 
with Chinese Labour. 





CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Ill 

M. re Smet de Naeyer: —I shall not follow you on that ground. 
Gentlemen, the debate has reached the stage where we may ask our¬ 
selves to whom the interpellation is addressed (ironical laughter on 
the extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde:— You have created such an abnormal situation 
that it is difficult to interpellate you under normal conditions. 

M. de Smet de Xaeyer: —What is in the. highest degree abnormal 
is your interpellation, as I propose to show. One may ask one’s self, 
I said, to whom this interpellation is addressed; what is its object, 
and what can be its practical conclusion. In appearance, and accord¬ 
ing to the terms in which it is drawn up, the interpellation is ad¬ 
dressed to the Belgian Government, the only public body which is 
called upon to give an account of its actions before the Belgian Par¬ 
liament. In point of fact, the interpellation is directed against the 
legislation and internal administration of the Congo State, that is to 
say, of a foreign State, of a State juridically independent—as its 
name implies—of Belgium, as well as of any other State. As the 
Report of the Commission of Inquiry rightly says:— 

“ The Powers recognised the sovereign existence of the Congo State, but 
without participating in any way either in its work or in its development, and 
naturally apart from any idea of assistance or tutelage, which would be in¬ 
compatible with the position of independence given to the State.” 

This elementary opinion of the international situation of the Congo 
State has since been proclaimed simultaneously in London* and in 
Washington. Only a few days ago, the Secretary of State of the 
United States declared that no country had the right to interfere in 
the government of the Congo State.f 

I will now examine the matter which the interpellation contains. 
Tn appearance, and according to the terms in which it is drawn up, 
the interpellation was to bear upon the following objects: 

1. The duties which are incumbent upon Belgium as signatory 

Power to the Berlin Act of 1885. 

2. The inconveniences which result for Belgium from the regime 

of .personal union with the Congo State. 

3. Placing Belgian officers and officials at the disposal of the 

Congo State. 

The Hon. M. Vandervelde completely abandoned the above pro¬ 
gramme; he specified no duty incumbent upon Belgium relating to 
the facts which he has extracted from the Report of the Commission 
of Inquiry, or other publications or documents; he has shown no 
inconveniences resulting for Belgium from personal union with the 
Congo State; and, finally, if he referred to Belgian officials placed 
at the disposal of the Congo State, it was simply to attack a magis¬ 
trate and a vice-consul, who, by their protests, communicated to the 
House, disposed at once of the charges which they thought had been 
brought against them. 

M. Vandervelde: —What! You assert that I formulated against 
them charges they have disposed of? 

M. Loran t D ':—And it is all written! 

M. Vandervelde: —Pardon me. I must ask you to specify what 
you have just said. 

* What Sir Edward Grey said was that no single party to an international 
agreement could denounce it. 

f M. Root has since modified his attitude. 



112 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—Don’t try to bring up a side issue, I beg. 

M. Vandervelde :■—-Then don’t indulge in insinuations. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —M. Vandervelde and M. Lorand were 
allowed to pronounce their indictments without being interrupted, 
and I shall be happy if they will not seek to draw me away from the 
arguments which I am presenting to the House. 

M. Vandervelde :—It is impossible that I should allow you to 
make a statement which is quite inaccurate. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You are really reversing our respective 
parts! It will be open for you to reply to me, if you think necessary. 

M. Vandervelde :—I take note of the inaccuracy of what you have 
said. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I maintain, therefore, in the first place, 
gentlemen, that the interpellation, as my colleague, the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs, showed, is totally lacking in a juridical basis, from 
the point of view of public international law. 

M. Vandervelde: —How comes it, then, that the Hon. M. Beernaert 
has brought forward a resolution? (Laughter on the extreme left.) 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —No doubt M. Vandervelde himself had 
quite understood this, because the conclusions which he developed are 
wide of the apparent programme which he traced out for himself. 
There is no question of the Belgian Government intervening; there 
is no question of destroying the personal union, or modifying the 
regime; there is no question of recalling Belgian officers or officials in 
the service of the Congo State. Leaving on one side all these labels 
of his interpellation, the hon. member asks the House to— 

“Appoint a Commission, instructed to make an inquiry on the consequences 
which might result for Belgium from the ultimate annexation of the Congo, and 
of the fulfilment of the reforms necessary to ensure the preservation of the 
native peoples, and the improvement of their moral and material conditions of 
existence.” 

But M. Vandervelde does not appear to attach more importance to 
his proposal for an inquiry than to the original programme of his 
interpellation, seeing that he has proclaimed his agreement with the 
resolution brought forward by M. Masson, who confines himself to 
inviting the Government to ask from the Congo State the communica¬ 
tion of all documents, accounts, and reports of a nature to enlighten 
Parliament, in view of a discussion on the ultimate annexation of the 
Congo. After the author of the interpellation, the House heard M. 
Bertrand, who stated that he wished to examine the financial and 
economic aspects of the Congo question. M. Bertrand spoke of the 
financial situation of the Congo, and the State’s debt, of the expenses 
of the Sovereign King, even of the manner in which the contracts for 
the construction of the Brussels Palace were placed. But I ask 
myself in vain what conclusions he arrives at! In all this affair, 
gentlemen, there is a certain person who is fulminated against, who is 
as an accused party, who is condemned in advance, and who has not 
been heard (approval on the right) ; this someone is the Congo State, 
or rather all those who touch the Congo.* The accused parties and 

* I omit several interruptions here, which relate to a play upon the word 
“touchent,” used by the Prime Minister, and which has a double meaning in 
French. 





CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 113 


the condemned parties, of whom I speak, constitute the Government 
of the Congo State, the Domaine de la Couronne , the Sovereign King, 
the Force Publique , the Administration, the Magistracy, the Com¬ 
mercial Companies. Faults of organisation, vices in application, 
abuses, and excesses have been pointed out. The Government of the 
Congo State instituted a Commission of Inquiry, in order to verify 
the facts, and to make ultimate suggestions for improvement. The 
Commission handed in its Report on the 13th October, 1905, and the 
Congo Government sent a copy of it to the Governor-General, pub¬ 
lished it, and appointed a ‘Commission, “ instructed to consider its 
conclusions, to formulate proposals which they thought necessary, 
and to seek for practical means of realising them,” and it is at this 
moment, under cover of an interpellation addressed to the Belgian 
Government, that attacks of all kinds, and the gravest accusations 
against the Congo enterprise as a whole, are brought before this 
House! In favour of the gale which, as M. Woeste w T ell said, blows 
at this moment upon the Congo State, members can be found who 
come here and make a chorus with those who are endeavouring to 
hound on public opinion against an enterprise, a study of which on 
the spot, in its fundamental organisation, and in its present state of 
advancement, dragged from the Commission of Inquiry a cry of 
admiration ! (Applause on the right.) You have heard, gentlemen, 
that passage, so sincerely eulogious, from the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry, which I quoted at the beginning of my speech. 
Never, so far as I know, have any of the friends of the Congo State, 
who are naturally suspicious, in the eyes of M. Yandervelde and M. 
Lorand, gone so far in praising the work of Belgians in Africa 
(applause on the right). 

M. Yandervelde:— The Report has been distributed to all the 
members of the House; they can judge of its significance. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — Quite so, and that is why I am convinced 
that I shall find myself holding a common opinion with all those who 
care to judge general and specific facts impartially, in considering the 
difficulties of a work of African colonisation, and by taking account 
of the circumstances and of the environment. The Commission of 
Inquiry itself foresaw the abusive manner in which many of its con¬ 
clusions might be utilised, from the point of view of the judgment 
which might he invoked on the errors, the faults and excesses which it 
disclosed:— 

“ Interpreting in the widest manner the mission which was confided to us, we 
have riddled, from the critical point of view, the whole administration of the 
Congo State in our Report. We have pointed out, without hiding any of them, 
every abuse which struck us, but we do not retain the illusion that those who 
read our work may be in a position to appreciate, sanely and impartially, the 
Congo enterprise. It is impossible to appreciate fairly African matters unless 
one has seen th^m; one might almost say unless one has lived them. Exam¬ 
ined from a European point of view, a large number of the facts disclosed 
by us present a character which they cannot have in the eyes of those who 
have been witnesses of them. It is thus that distinguished magistrates, 
amongst those some whose help was the most useful to us in seeking after 
truth, assured us that, in their opinion, the retention of women as hostages 
in the stations was the mildest and most humane, and the most efficacious, 
means of coercion, the most in harmony with native habits, notwithstanding 
that they admitted that, judged from a distance, this measure would appear 
as a crying iniquity.* It is obvious that the legislation itself with a judicial 


* In a letter to the Foreign Office, dated 16th January, 1906, the Congo 
Reform Association wrote:—“ My Committee welcomes the proposals referred 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-8 




114 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


edifice so rapidly constructed, which was admired by an impartial and even 
severe criticism, and whose only fault is perhaps, that of being theoretically 
too perfect, this legislation, we think, does not always take into sufficient 
account the conditions of the country, and the people for whom it is framed. 
One must not lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding the progress realised, 
the natives of the Congo are still, in a large majority, savages. Twenty cen¬ 
turies were needed to make of Gaul, in the time of the Caesars, the France 
and Belgium of to-day, and if our ancestors were, in the eyes of the Roman 
conquerors, barbarians, we can say without temerity that they were civilised 
beings in comparison with the cannibals who peopled the immense territory 
of the State at the time of its creation. How can it be supposed that 
such ‘ European ’ legislation as that of the Congo State should not meet fre¬ 
quently with insurmountable obstacles in the* * course of application?* Hence 
the contradictions between law and practice; hence the violation of the law 
which the’ Courts punish, while extending to their authors the benefit of 
extenuating circumstances. The Court of Appeal at Boma, notably, has passed 
verdicts within the last few years of the most severe character, but has always 
taken into account the difficulties in which Europeans are placed, f To develop 


to in your letter, and to which its attention had been drawn, for a reform of 
the judicial organisation of the State, as recommended by the Commission of 
Inquiry, calculated to make the administration of justice independent of the 
Executive authority, while noting that the enjoyment of independence on the 
part of the Judicial authorities—now seen to be, not independence, but de¬ 
pendence—has been claimed hitherto as fully secured. But it would seem, 
from statements contained in the Commission’s Report, that a reform more 
profound and more far-reaching than the one suggested is required, in view 
of the disclosures made to the Commissioners by ‘ distinguished magistrates ’ 
(p. 280), to the effect that, in their view, ‘the retention of women hostages in 
the stations was the mildest and most humane form of coercion’ (p. 280). 
When civilisation is presented to the primitive races of Central Africa in the 
form of the seizing and incarceration of women, as the ‘ mildest and most 
humane ’ method of stimulating the production of rubber on the part of their 
male relatives, and that by those specially selected as representing the laws 
and customs of civilised usage, my Committee augurs but little from the 
reforms recommended by the Commission. Apart from the abundant evidence 
available as to the treatment meted out to women hostages in the prisons, 
notably the revelations in the Mongalla massacre, in the Tilkens case, in the 
testimony of missionaries like Messrs. Scrivener, Gilchrist, and Ruskin—my 
Committee sees in the enunciation of such mediawal doctrines by ‘ distin¬ 
guished magistrates ’ further melancholy proof of the spirit which animates the 
Congo Administration.” 

*The whole of such legislation being founded, not upon the fulfillment of a 
common task for the dual benefit of the European and the native, but upon the 
pillage of the native for the profit of the European. Moreover, and this is a 
point which, in view of all the criticism which the practices of the Congo 
State call for, has not been perhaps sufficiently emphasised, viz., the theoretical 
legislation of the Congo State has been framed by men who have not the very 
least notion of African affairs. The above passage in the Report of Commis¬ 
sion, in which the transformation of ancient Gaul into modern France and Bel¬ 
gium is referred to, is proof of the strange misconceptions which prevail 
even among men like the Commissioners, one of whom at least may be said 
to be a distinguished student of European history. Precisely, on that account, 
perhaps, is this misconception the more glaring. The attempt to build up a 
European State-form in the African tropics, even were it honest (and in the 
minds, no doubt, of some of the frame'rs of the theoretical legislation of the 
Congo State, it is honest), is a chimera. The African tropics can never be 
Europeanised, and every attempt to work on such lines, even though the motives 
were of the purest, is doomed to absolute and utter failure. 

fThe world so far has been favoured—and not by the Congo State!—with 
but one judgment of the Boma Appeal Court, the judgment in the Caudron 
case, and the “ difficulties ” with which the Europeans are confronted, and which 
led the Court upon that occasion to grant extenuating circumstances to a man 
convicted of having caused the murder of over 100 human beings, guilty of no 
crime, not even of resistance, may be estimated by the following passage in 
the verdict delivered by Baron Nisco, the then judge of the Appeal Court, 
and one of the members of the Commission of Inquiry. The learned judge, in 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIYES. 115 


itself, the Congo State is confronted with the absolute necessity of exploiting 
the natural riches of the soil, and the sole labour of which it can make use of is 
to be found amongst the natives, who are refractory to work. Officials, ener¬ 
vated by a treacherous climate, which is always debilitating, and sometimes 
deadly, are isolated in the midst of savage peoples, and every day they see 
around them nothing but demoralising sights. They leave Europe with a 
respect for human life, and they soon see, in the midst of the barbarous sur¬ 
roundings to which they have been transplanted, that human life has no price. 
From infancy they have been taught to love their fellow creatures, and they 
find amongst the natives with whom they live an absolute ignorance of the 
feeling which is called charity—the native, indeed, does not understand that 
anything can be done without being compelled by personal interest, or by 
coercion. They are witnesses in the villages of the miserable condition of the 
weak and infirm, upon whom the Chiefs and the leading men place all the 
burden of labour when they can; everywhere they see women degraded to the 
condition of beasts of burden, working without interruption, saddled with 
nearly all the labour.” 

Finally, gentlemen, I extract from the same document the most 
striking homage which can be rendered morally to the legislation of 
the Congo State:— 

“ The Congo State might have avoided, if it had chosen to do so, a large 
part of the abuses which have been pointed out, nearly all of which find their 
root in the difficulty of making the native work. It would have been suffi¬ 
cient to imitate the example of various colonial governments, and to have 
authorised the free importation of alcohol into its territory. Alcohol, facts 
prove it abundantly, would soon have become an imperious need for the black. 
In order to satisfy it, he would have been compelled to conquer his native 
indolence. If the remuneration granted to taxpayers, instead of consisting 
in cotton goods and other useful products, had been given to them in trade 
gin, one would have soon have seen the chiefs and the principal men of each vil¬ 
lage driving to work, with the utmost energy, all those under their authority. 
Far be it from us to suggest such a measure, which would have as a con¬ 
sequence the fatal degradation of a whole race in a few years. On the con¬ 
trary, the interdiction against the importation of alcohol in the Congo is, with 
the suppression of slavery, the finest title to the glory of the Congo State. 
Humanity will always be grateful to it for having declined to use this powerful 
lever, to which others have had recourse, and having thus kept out of Africa 
a more terrible, and more destructive evil than the slave trade.” (Applause on 
the right.)* 

Will those who contradict me, MM. Yandervelde, Bertrand, and 
Sorand, refuse to share this feeling of gratitude. 

M. Bertrand : — And MM. Beernaert, Coifs and Terwagne ? 


concluding, for extenuating circumstances, pointed out that the accused had 
laboured in the midst of a population “ entirely refractory to all kinds of work, 
and which only respects the law of force, knows no other persuasion than 
terror.” Such is the spirit with which native problems are approached on the 
Congo, even by the few respectable elements which are to be found in its organ¬ 
isation. 

* There are many passages in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry which 
one reads with amazement, in view of the general admissions which the Report 
contains; passages which make one doubt whether the Commissioners them¬ 
selves ever wrote them. But for inaccuracy of fact, and for superlative hypoc¬ 
risy, this passage stands pre-eminent. In the first place, the credit of exclud¬ 
ing the importation of liquor in the Upper Congo belongs, not to the Congo 
State, but to the signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, which insisted upon this 
prohibition, largely owing to the initiative of Great Britain, which is acting in 
a similar manner, wth regard to Morocco, at the present moment. In the 
second place, the suggeston that the “ native taxpayer ” is paid on the Congo 
with “ cotton goods, and other useful articles,” is sheer mendacity. The tax¬ 
payer on the Congo is usually paid with ball cartridge, the lash, and the 
hostage house. In the third place, the endeavour which is here made to assert 
that the commercial activity of the African native is wholly due to a passion for 
alcohol is an outrageous travesty of the truth. In the fourth place, this drag- 



116 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —After the incontestable proof which the 
Congo Government has given of its wisdom, its foresight, and its 
perseverance in the working of its internal organisation to deny to it 
the intention, will and energy to bring about reforms which may be 
necessary, and to destroy abuses, is to inflict upon it an outrage, 
against which reason and justice protest (renewed applause on the 
right). A Commission of Reforms has just been instituted. Bel¬ 
gium, like all the other signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, can only 
wait with confidence the progress which the work of this Commission 
will bring about. One can realty never have read the history of 
nations to fail to recognise, as has been done, the grandeur of the 
work accomplished in the Congo; 

M. TerwagneB ut this comparison of yours is not serious? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—It is the Commission of Inquiry itself 
which compares the work accomplished by that Government in less 
than a quarter of a century with the work of ancient Gaul. 

M. Masson :—We recognise that the Congo State has done great 
things. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:—You do not deny it, my dear colleague, 
but people around you do not agree, and I protest once more against 
the unjust and unpatriotic language of those who cast opprobrium 
on the Congo enterprise. 

M. Vandervelde : —You have said that a hundred times already. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —It is not the Government’s business to 
defend the Congo State. On that head we have no duty to perform, 
or responsibility to fulfil, but as a Belgian I have difficulty in con¬ 
taining my indignation .... 

M. vandervelde: —-You do not appear in the least indignant ! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— ... In face of this overflow of 
acrimony towards an enterprise which interests to such a great degree 
the honour and the prosperity of our country. 

M. Vandervelde :—Are you speaking of a Belgian enterprise, or of 
a foreign enterprise? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Perhaps I ought to be less affected by 
such feelings, because since I have sat in this place I have heard our 

ging in of the liquor traffic argument, in order to wash the sins (sins which 
call to heaven, if any have ever done, for punishment and redress) of the 
Congo administration, can only fill the mind of every honest man with sheer 
disgust. It is better, it seems, for the regeneration of the native, to subject 
him to all that the Congo Government has subjected him to, rather than allow 
him, if he so chooses, to spend a portion of his earnings in the luxury of a 
drink (it seems to be quite overlooked that every primitive people fabricates 
its own liquor) ! Similarly might the highwayman be justified in robbing his. 
victim, lest perchance some of the money taken from his victim’s pocket might 
have been expended in the public-house. By the same process of reasoning, the 
highwayman would be justified if, after robbing his victim, he completed his 
regenerating task of knocking him on the head! The problem of the liquor 
traffic in Africa, like the problem of the liquor traffic in Europe, and all over 
the world, is a problem fraught with the very gravest difficulties. But to seek 
to compare evils which may be produced by the liquor traffic in Africa with the 
evils of the Congo State system is a piece of monumental effrontery. I am all 
the freer to say this, personally, as I have written against the liquor traffic in 
Africa. The British Government, it may be noted, has ever stood in the fore¬ 
front of an increased Customs’ House duty on the importation of African spirit, 
and to-morrow not only the British Government, but all British merchants 
engaged in the African trade, would welcome an International Conference to 
deal with the West African liquor trade, especially as regards the limitation of 
import and the purification of the product imported. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 117 

internal policy and our economic reforms attacked with the same 
bitterness .... 

M. Vandervelde :—Such as the Agricultural Distilleries, for 
instance. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—If you wish to speak about Agricultural 
Distilleries, I will reply to your anti-alcoholic measures. 

M. Huysmans: —Perhaps you had better not speak about them 
(laughter). 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I do not wish to go outside my speech, 
and I do not think that I am doing so when I say that certain mem¬ 
bers of this assembly, who inflict their immeasurable attacks upon 
the Congo State, are also those who ceaselessly attack, with as much 
injustice as doggedness, the policy of the Belgian Government. 

M. Vandervelde: —You are, no doubt, about to make for the one 
hundredth time an apology for your financial measures. 

M. Bertrand: —Quite so; you are going to remind us that you 
have abolished the duty on cocoa and coffee. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —This perpetual backbiting does not hurt 
anyone. The truth is that we have led the country into a channel of 
prosperity which it had never known in the past, and the African 
enterprise has helped it enormously. Gentlemen, the House will 
not expect me to follow, point by point, the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry, and the speeches of my critics. In order to meet the 
specific and general statements they have made, I will limit myself 
to a few points which should especially be noted. Much has been 
said of the so-called appropriation of the land and of rubber collec¬ 
tion. Now, it is well that one should understand, because the oppo¬ 
nents of the Congo have been very careful not to say so, that an 
identical regime is practised in all other colonies.* 

M. Lorand: —In his book, M. Cattier compared the systems pre¬ 
vailing in different colonies, and proved that the one which is in 
force in the Congo exists nowhere else. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—I am about to show you that he is wrong. 
Passages of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry have been read 
out relating to the abuses connected with rubber collection. These 
abuses are certainly to be deplored, and they must be remedied. 
That is what the Congo State wishes, and one of the objects of the 
Report of the Commission of Inquiry will be to study the means of 
preventing their repetition. But there are other facts that are studi¬ 
ously concealed. The Commission of Inquiry recognised that the 
abuses are only individual faults, that they are not inherent to the 
system established, and stated explicitly: 

1. That the State had the right to appropriate vacant land. 

2. That the State had the right, and that it was necessary for it 

to itself exploit the forests and the lands of its domain. 

3. The legitimacy and the necessity of establishing a labour 

tax. 

4. The legitimacy and the necessity of applying coercion, f 

*A statement absolutely, diametrically, and radically untrue, 
f It is precisely due to the fact that the Commission of Inquiry upheld this 
fundamental iniquity that, while its Report has been of enormous value, as 
substantiating once and for all the charges of atrocity brought against the 
Congo State for ten years, its Report is wholly inadequate to meet the require¬ 
ments of the case, as the Congo Reform Association predicted would be so 
before the Commission left Belgium. 



118 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

The Commission bases all its remarks on this initial admission:— 

“All production of trade in the Congo is only possible at the present time, 
and will only be possible for a long time to come, through native labour.” 

and the report justifies coercion by the natural indolence of the 
native.* 

M. Masson : —Is it by coercion that you intend to lead the natives 
to work? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— In the earlier stages a certain amount 
of coercion cannot be avoided (interruption—uproar). 

M. Janson:— It is with such arguments that slavery is justified. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —You forget that one of the first acts of 
the Congo State was to suppress slavery, f 

M. Janson: —It was thus that the South American planters justi¬ 
fied slavery. 

M. Lorand: —The condition of the natives of the Congo is worse 
than the condition of the South American slaves ever was. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— It is ridiculous. Why, in the Congo it 
is only a matter of four or five days’ labour per month.J 

M. Lorand: —It is not four or five days per month which are 
deirtanded of the negro; it is all the month, with the exception of 
four or five days. The Commission of Inquiry admits that in the 
most formal manner. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Not at all; the Commission admits the 
principle of the law, which is called the forty hours law. 

M. Lorand: —The Report acknowledges, on the contrary, that 
the native has only three or four days left to him in the month, and 
is ever weighed down under the knowledge of new privations and 
new dangers, which he will have to incur in returning to the forest. 

* One could, of course, fill pages of this publication in proving the absolute 
falsity of this excuse, not only as regards Tropical Africa in general, but as 
regards the Congo State itself. But I have before me a report, just received, 
drawn up by a renowned French explorer, M. Auguste Chevalier, who was 
engaged last year on a mission for the Governor-General of French West 
Africa, to study the economic development of some of the Foreign West African 
Colonies. M. Chevalier visited, amongst other tropical dependencies, the Gold 
Coast, and studied in particular the cocoa industry of the Gold Coast, which, 
as everyone knows who knows anything at all about Tropical Africa, is entirely 
a native industry, carried on by natives on their own land, in their own right, 
and for their own profit, an industry which in 1899, was only represented by 
an annual value of cocoa exported amounting to £16,000, but which in 1904 
had risen to an annual value of £200,204. M. Chevalier, after noting with 
admiration the way in which this industry has become developed—the only part 
which the Government takes in it being to distribute gratis seeds to the natives 
from the Government station at Aburi, and in giving them such expert advice 
as the small but efficient staff at Aburi is capable of doing—closes his Report 
with the following passage:— 

“ It is not by coercion and forced labour that the development of the African 
cocoa industry will take large proportions, but by the system of encouraging 
and educating the native, which is so brilliantly carried on by the English in 
the Gold Coast.” But one can only repeat here, for the hundredth time perhaps, 
that the arguments used by the Commission of Inquiry, by M. de Smet de 
Naeyer, and by the official and unofficial defenders of the Congo State, are 
necessary to cover a system which does not aim at the economic development 
of the African tropics in the interests of the inhabitants, and of the home manu¬ 
facturer, but aims at the rapid pillage of the African tropics for the enrich¬ 
ment of private individuals in Europe. 

f On paper, and to apply and to subject the people to a worse slavery than 
they had ever known before, in practice. 

t A typical sentence! 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 119 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The Commission points out the faults 
or organisation, and indicates reforms which appear to it to be useful. 
The Congo State will not fail, through the Commission of Reforms, 
to understand the evil, and apply the remedy. In any case, you will 
admit with me that labour which consists in making an incision in 
the rubber vines is not in itself very arduous (interruption—up¬ 
roar). Moreover, gentlemen, forced labour is only a transitory step; 
the native will learn to work voluntarily, to satisfy the needs which 
have been created in him.* You should know that all the Congo 
tribes are not equally indolent. Those who have been in contact for 
centuries with Portuguese merchants are accustomed to work. In 
certain colonies the negroes have been incited to work by filling them 
with alcohol. Is that what you want?f 

M. Mansart: —The chicotte is still worse. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—You forget to realise the state of affairs 
which existed in the Congo before the constitution of the State. Let 
the reports of the explorers of the Congo basin—Livingstone, Stan¬ 
ley, Cameron, and all the Belgians who have illustrated geograph¬ 
ical science—be read, and you will see in the midst of what crime and 
atrocities the native populations were living. Their activity was 
confined to inter-tribal warfare, and the slave-trade.^ The abolition 
of the slave trade did not suppress slavery in the interior of Africa, 
nor these inter-tribal wars, which have become with these people a 
habit and a need. If the State did not make its direct and continuous 
influence felt over these peoples, the majority of them would return 
quickly to their primitive state of savagery. Where the action of the 
State is not absolutely effective, abominable abuses take place, which 
shows what is still to-day the mental condition of the native when 
left to his own instincts. Here is one of those acts of cruelty which 
took place a few months ago, on the confines of Katanga, which is 
reported by an English engineer established in that region. The 
latter got the story from one of his black employees sent by him to 
buy food from a neighbouring village. 

M. Beernaert:— Has it been published? 

M. de Smet de Naeter: —No, it is a private correspondence, of 
which I have had communication. I may add that this engineer is 
related to a distinguished English statesman, and I can certify to his 
high honour. 

“ Whilst trading amongst the natives, I arrived at the village of Kayeye, on 
the Luzi river, a tributary of the Lubudi. Kayeye is three days from Mazan- 
guli, and one day from Lualaba. I had bought food and sent it to Mazanguli, 
and there was more food in one of the village huts. While I was in this vil- 


* The native will work anywhere for a fair wage, and will trade anywhere 
where he is given a market. Wherever the native of the Upper Congo had come 
into indirect contact, through the Coast tribes, with the white man, he traded 
long before the Congo State was born or thought of. 
t See foot-note, page 126. 

% Stanley said a good many things. He said, amongst other things, this: 
“The fixed and permanent way (he was referring to a railway) which will be 
such a benefit to the Cataract region just described, would be a still greater 
benefit to the Upper Congo, with its plain-like lands, and to the keen, enterpris¬ 
ing, high-spirited peoples who occupy them. Even now many a flotilla descends 
the great river 500 miles down to Stanleyville, to wait patiently for months 
before their goods can be disposed of to the Lower Congo caravans.” These are 
the people whom M. de Smet de Naeyer represents as sunk in perennial idleness, 
incapable of any incentive but the incentive of coercion. 



120 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


lage, the Batetela were sighted at a distance of about a mile off. The Chief, 
myself, and those who could, fled away. We crossed the river, and from the 
other side we saw the Batetela invade the village. The old men, who could 
not take flight, attempted to defend themselves with their guns; but the Bate¬ 
tela, who had several guns, killed a few, and took some of the others prisoners. 
We saw them cut up and eat those whom they had killed. They had brought 
with them their women and their children, and ate five bodies and all my food¬ 
stuffs, then captured several men who were carrying loads. Those who were 
taken alive were examined, in order to see if they would do to be sold as slaves. 
If so, they were taken off to be sold to the Wandumbo; the old and the infirm 
had their throats cut, and eaten. They cut off their arms and legs while they 
were still living. We saw them cleaning the flesh, and boiling it in deep sauce¬ 
pans, after having salted it. When the men whom they had taken prisoners 
were very thin, they gave them their liberty, and said to them, “ Go away, and 
feed yourselves well with cassava, in order that you may be fat for our next 
return.”* 


Here, gentlemen, is an absolutely contemporaneous fact, which gives 
you an idea of the frightful life of the native peoples left to them¬ 
selves, on the confines of the territory where the Congo State has been 
unable' as yet to establish the order and security depicted by the Com¬ 
mission or Inquiry. 

M. Beernaert :—Is this report printed ? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I said a moment ago that it was a private 
correspondence. Does the House wish that the Congo peoples should 
be allowed to welter in this condition of barbarism ? 

M. Terwagne:— The situation described in that letter is not gen¬ 
eral. It is exaggerated on purpose. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— The only means to restore order and 
security in this country is to subject the natives to discipline. The 
labour tax f brought about this result, and thus conferred a benefit. 
All the Companies established in the Congo, with the exception of 
the Kasai Company, which is in an especially favoured region, de¬ 
clared that they could not make the natives do anything, without 
coercion, and they begged the authorities of the State to intervene to 
compel the natives to work, or to give them means of exercising direct 
coercion upon them.J I refer to the Companies established in the 
Upper Congo, where the collection of rubber has been abandoned to 
individuals, through the decree of the 8th November, 1903. The 
natives are free to bring, or not to bring, the produce of the forests 


* This is an interesting story. The teller not only saw the things, but heard 
all this from the opposite bank of the river! It is rather a pity that these 
cannibal natives should have been Batetela; a pity, I mean, from the point of 
view of M. de Smet de Naeyer’s argument, seeing that it was by the help of 
these same Batetela that the Congo State exterminated the Arabs, leaving the 
Batetela free to ration themselves upon the bodies of the slain on the Arab 
side. Readers desirous of verifying the above statement can do so by procur¬ 
ing a copy of the “ Fall of the Congo Arabs,” by Dr. Hinde. There is another 
somewhat unfortunate point in the above narrative for M. de Smet de Naeyer’s 
argument, and that is the somewhat naive admission made by the story-teller 
that the Batetela in question were armed with guns. Now either these men 
must have been supplied with guns by the Katanga Trust, in which the Congo 
State holds the predominant number of shares, and otherwise controls, contrary 
to Congo State law; or else they were irregular troops employed by the Katanga 
Trust! 

f The labour “ tax ” was unlimited, and applied illegally for seven years; it 
was limited, on paper, to “ forty hours per month ” in November, 1903. 

t This must be untrue, for the simple reason that the Trading Companies 
possess the means of direct coercion. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIYES. 121 

to the Commercial Companies.* All these Companies claimed the 
intervention of the State, by saying that neither promise nor offer of 
even exaggerated salaries can make the natives work.f The people 
have very few means, and they prefer to live in a miserable state 
rather than to work for paid labour. Yet they reside in the forest, 
in regions where the collection of rubber only requires a minimum of 
effort.^ It will be seen, therefore, that the labour tax is as necessary 
to the civilisation and to the education of the negro as to the develop¬ 
ment of trade on the Congo. That is the opinion which is very clearly 
expressed by Mons. Augouard, French Bishop of Brazzaville. 

. M. Masson : — It has not at all been made out that the peoples of the 
Upper Kasai were for long in relations with European trade. It 
has been affirmed, but it seems to me that M. Cattier has peremptorily 
refuted this assertion. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —In truth, the book of M. Cattier seems 
to have been raised to the height of the Bible ! I shall reserve myself 
the right of shoiving in an instant to the House what that book is. 
Everyone knows that the Portuguese had been established for centu¬ 
ries in Angola, South of the Congo. Portuguese traders penetrated 
into the interior of the country by means of caravans, and it is, there¬ 
fore, not astonishing that they should have established an influence, 
traces of which are to be found here and there even now. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— Portuguese names have even been pre¬ 
served in this region. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— M. Vandervelde protested with indigna¬ 
tion because the natives are prevented from travelling outside their 
villages without authority from the District Commissioner. The 
honourable member skw in this measure an act of oppression, and 
he thinks, no doubt, that there is nothing like it in any other country 
which is being colonised. This is a double error, as the Commission 
of Inquiry remarked quite rightly, in regard to other matters in the 
passage of this Report, which I quoted a short while ago. One 
must be careful not to look upon such regulations with European 
ideas. To raise the moral and material level of the native, the 
colonising State is imbued with the principle that the natives cannot 
be left isolated in their natural surroundings. The tribe is the moral 
status of the native, the condition of his political and social develop¬ 
ment. Separated from his tribe, the native becomes a vagabond. 
It is, therefore, with the object of protecting him that the State 
seeks to maintain natural and traditional communities. Here, gentle¬ 
men, is a regulation which shows what severe penalties Nigeria 
applies to the violation of this necessary principle:— 

“Any person wandering abroad, or having no apparent means of subsistence, 
may be arrested by any officer of any Court within the district in which such 
person is found, without a warrant, and brought before the Commissioner of 
such district, and questioned as to his means of subsistence, and to which 
House he belongs.” 

M. Masson:— What document are you reading? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — It is a proclamation, dated 21st Novem- 


* No such region exists, except on paper. 

t The La Lulonga Society, which is situated in one of these paper regions, 
uses the same “ methods of persuasion ” as its neighbour, the A.B.I.R. 
t All this is demonstrably in opposition to fact. 



122 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


ber, 1901, from the Laws of Southern Nigeria. Article 8 of that 
Proclamation reads as follows:— 

“If it appears that he belongs to a House, notice shall given to the head of 
such house, who may thereupon commence such proceedings as he may see fit 
under the proclamation, or under native law and custom. If the person ar¬ 
rested refuses, when questioned, to answer to the satisfaction of the Commis¬ 
sioner, and it does not appear that he belongs to a House, or if the head of the 
House to whom any notice of the arrest has been given as aforesaid, does not 
commence proceedings within seven days after the receipt of such notice, such 
person, unless he proves that he has sufficient means of subsistence, or that 
his want of such means is not the result of his own fault, shall be liable to a 
term of imprisonment with hard labour for any term not exceeding a year.” 

And further on the proclamation adds:— 

“ Every person who resists or obstructs the lawful apprehension of himself 
for any offence under this proclamation, or escapes or attempts to escape from 
any custody in .which he is lawfully detained, shall be liable to a fine not ex¬ 
ceeding one year, or to both.” * 

If we realise the environment and the habits, as also the object 
which it is attempted to secure, it will be easily understood that 
regulations of this kind, far from being due to an idea of oppression 
and exploitation, are inspired by the thought that the native, sepa¬ 
rated from his tribe and from his village, is incapable of protecting 
himself, or providing for his needs. 

M. Delporte: —They are condemned to hard labour to improve 
themselves! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:—You see, gentlemen, that the internal 
legislative system adopted by the Congo State is not different from 
that which other States apply to their colonies. 

M. Lorand :—That is inaccurate. M. Cattier has shown that they 
are different. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —M. Cattier is one of those adversaries 
who, by a singular conception of things, only sees in the Congo enter¬ 
prise matter for criticism. 

M. Lorand : —But the question is, the facts admitted by the Com¬ 
mission. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —His work is not the work of an historian, 
or of an economist or sociologist, but of a pamphleteer. 

M. Lorand : —This book is based upon the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry; you have not destroyed a single one of the facts 
which he has brought forward. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— I have characterised the general tend¬ 
ency of the book, and I shall show in a moment how the author 
deals with facts and figures. I should have liked to have extended 


* M. de Smet de Naeyer reads into this proclamation an intention to prevent 
natives from freely moving about where their vocations call them, thereby seek¬ 
ing to justify similar practices enforced by the Congo State, and indicted by 
the Commission of Inquiry. It was framed with no such intention. The clause 
referred to by the Belgian Premier was aimed at the vagrant vagabond and 
marauder, who not only committed crime himself in order to live, but encour¬ 
aged or offered opportunity for crime to others by his unprotected state, 
rendering himself liable to seizure and, possibly, sale as a slave, or even as a 
victim to human sacrifice. The House system is a purely native system, and 
membership of a House meant protection by the Heads of the House, lodging, 
board (probably), farm, etc., for the poorer members. The proclamation, far 
from committing an act of injustice, enforces the responsibility of the House, 
and protects the wandering criminal from seizure, and native social life from 
depredation. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 123 

further my demonstration, notably by examining the internal system 
adopted by other African Colonies, but interruptions have made me 
lose time, and it is late. As for the question of reforms. 

M. Vandervelde: —You have quite a library. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —Do you think it wrong that I should be 
well posted ? 

M. Hymans:— If we approach the question of reforms to be 
brought about in the Congo, and the examination of all questions 
which may be germane to that issue, the discussion will last a long 
time. 

M. Vandervelde: —Especially if we are going to discuss Nigeria 
and all the other possessions. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —If the discussion has developed in that 
way, M. Vandervelde and his friends can make it their mea culpa . 
The Government would have been justified in declining the interpel¬ 
lation, because, as I said before, it is an indictment against a Power 
which is not represented in this assembly. 

M. Bertrand :—You represent it so well! (Laughter on the ex¬ 
treme left.) 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I take that for a compliment, and I 
thank you (laughter on the right). If we reply to the interpellation, 
it is because it is our duty as Belgians not to let unjust and passion¬ 
ate accusations against a work which will profit Belgium, pass without 
comment (applause on the right). If some find my speech too long, 
I can only regret it. 

M. Hymans :—Not at all. I am listening with much interest, but 
1 say that this is an academic discussion. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— The discussion could have ended with 
the speech of my colleague for Foreign Affairs, if the terms of the 
interpellation had been adhered to. 

M. Delporte: —You are replying to things which have not been 
said here. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —But we cannot, I admit, devote indefi¬ 
nitely our time to a matter that—in the way the question has been 
put—is not within our competence. 

M. Vandervelde: —If there is anything in our competence it is 
the right to protest against such abuses. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —No criminal or oppressive act, no abuse 
of force or authority, will find defenders on the part of the Congo 
State, here or elsewhere. The Congo Government has given a com¬ 
plete proof of its intentions, and of its resolves, by instituting a 
Commission of Inquiry, followed by a Commission of Reforms. 
Gentlemen, I now come to the book of Mr. Cattier. I say that this 
book has been inspired either by hatred against the State, or with¬ 
out sufficient verification of figures and facts which it gives. 

M. Lorand: —M. Cattier said certain things. You can refute 
them. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —It is not my business to refute the book 
from one end to the other, but I will show, by three examples, the 
credit which it deserves, for without it this interpellation would 
probably not have taken place. 

M. Lorand :—The Report of the Commission was amply sufficient, 
and all M. Cattier has done is to throw light upon it. 


124 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—One need not be astonished that M. Van- 
dervelde should have followed in the footsteps of M. Cattier, when 
one reads, in the preface to the book, special praise bestowed upon the 
author by M. Vandervelde for the energetic backing which he has 
given to the campaign organised against the administrative methods 
of the Congo (outcry on the extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde :—It was an injustice towards my honourable 
friend, M. Lorand. 

M. Hoyois :—Two heads under the same bonnet (laughter). 

M. Vandervelde : —What I am proud of, is having denounced, 
before the Parliament of my country, the abuses of Leopoldian 
colonisation. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— I have replied in advance to that, by 
showing what Africa still is where the Congo State does not exercise 
its authority, after having shown what it has become, as the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry itself admits, where the civilising influence of the 
Congo State has been exercised. I will therefore deal, gentlemen, 
with a few special points in M. Cattier’s book. Speaking of the 
Domaine de la Couronne , M. Vandervelde quoted the figures of M. 
Cattier, to show that the revenue of the Domaine has produced up 
to now 70 millions. We shall see in a moment how exaggerated 
the figure is. 

M. Bertrand: —In that respect, one cannot have the figures, be¬ 
cause they are not published. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Quite so.* But what is certain is that 
M. Cattier has exaggerated them at his own pleasure. At a sitting 
of the 3rd July, 1903, in this House, in the course of a discussion 
on an interpellation somewhat analogous to this one, I informed the 
House that the Domaine de la Couronne was an independent creation, 
moving outside the orbit of Governmental action of the Congo State, 
an institution managed by three administrators, who had agreed to 
act in conformity with the Decree drawn up by the Sovereign 
founder. This Decree was drawn up with high philanthropic, scien¬ 
tific and artistic ideas, and provided for the realisation of these ideas 
outside all intervention from the public powers, f The financial 
management of this Domaine,, therefore, is not included in any official 
account. I But anyone who knows anything of geography and the 
trade of the Copgo State can see for himself how exaggerated are 
the evaluations of M. Cattier. According to the latter, the rubber 
zone of the Congo covers an area of 1,026,875 kilometres square. 


* M. de Smet de Naeyer admits that the figures are not published; in other 
words, the revenue drawn from a part of the Congo State, ten times the size 
of Belgium, called the Domaine de la Couronne , are not accounted for in the 
Congo State’s Budgets. Yet M. de Cuvelier, King Leopold’s Principal Secre¬ 
tary of State, did not hesitate to commit the following untruth, in print in an 
official memorandum sent around to all the Powers, including Great Britain, 
on the 17th September, 1903 :— 

“All the revenues of the Domaine are paid into the Treasury.” 

+ Absolutism naked and unashamed. 

i Until 1903 the existence of the Domaine de la Couronne was suppressed, 
and the world was led to believe that all the revenues derived from the taxation 
of the Congo natives were utilised to improving the Congo territory, whereas, 
in point of fact, a secret fund had existed, the revenues from which were 
utilised by King Leopold outside the Congo. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 125 

Now the area of the zone where rubber is exploited is 2, 105,100 kilo¬ 
metres square, because it should be noted that the rubber zone must 
not be confused with the forest zone, which M. Cattier seems to have 
taken as a basis. Root rubber, which grows in the plains in various 
districts, furnishes a latex which is as good as vine rubber, although 
mixed with impurities, which have not yet been entirely eliminated, 
and which causes it to lose part of its value. The two other items 
of the rule of three adopted by M. Cattier to estimate the yield of 
the Domaine de la Gouronne , are also erroneous. The area of that 
Domaine is not 289,375 kilometres square, but 252,300 kilometres 
square, and the price of 7,000 francs, which the author adopts as an 
average profit per ton on rubber from 1896 to 1905, is too high by 
2,500 to 3,000 francs at least. Moreover, it should be noted that 
the Domaine de la Couronne has only been exploited as such since 
1900. These errors corrected, one obtains, basing one’s self upon 
M. Cattier, the figure of 18 millions, instead of 70 millions (outcry). 
That disposes of one of M. Cattier’s points [ * 

M. Bertrand: —Who gave you these figures? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I am not called upon to reply to that 
question (outcry on the left). 

M. Bertrand :—Are these figures official ? 

M. V andervelde : —Will you allow me to ask you a question ? 

M : de Smet Naeyers —You have no right to ask me whence I 
obtain the information, which I produce here on my responsibility. 

M. Vandervelde :—You take, then, responsibility for this figure 
of 18 millions? 

M. Bertrand :—Certainly, the Minister has just said so! 


* The only thing it disposes of is the idea which might have been previously 
entertained that M. de Smet de Naeyer is cognisant either of Congo geography or 
Congo “trade.” The Belgian Prime Minister says in the above passage that 
the total rubber-producing area of the Congo State is. 2,015,100 kilometres 
square. Now the total area of the Congo State is only 2,300,000 kilometres 
square, from which, in order to arrive at the rubber-producing area, one must 
deduct the immense area covered by the finest fluvial district in the world, 
plus the non-producing rubber area, plus a portion of the rubber-producing 
area which King Leopold’s rubber hunters are not yet exploiting, which is 
considerable. M. de Smet de Naeyer’s figure is therefore grotesque. As for 
the difference of 37,075 kilometres square between the estimates of the area 
of the Domaine de la Gouronne, it is a mere trifle, and who is likely to know 
more about it, M. Cattier, whose information coincides with that of the cele¬ 
brated Belgian geographist, M. A. J. Wauters, or a mere bald statement, with no 
data to back it? As for M. de Smet de Naeyer’s estimate of the profits per ton—• 
again a mere statement with no corroborative data enabling one to judge of 
its probable accuracy*—to discuss the matter adequately would entail a great 
deal of technical examination, out of place here. But from what I know of the 
profits of the great rubber Trusts of the Upper Congo, and from other relia¬ 
ble data, I consider M. Cattier’s estimate of 7,000 francs well below the mark. 
Of course, if the expenditure of ammunition utilised in the course of the “ forced 
labour” applied to acquire this rubber be taken into consideration, as a nor¬ 
mal expenditure, it may be that M. Cattier’s estimate would need a slight 
reduction. In the course of his 150-mile tramp of part of the Western portion 
of this royal demesne, Mr. Scrivener—the only white man who has set foot 
in this territory, apart from the Government’s agents—found the expenditure 
of cartridges to have been so great that the whole population had disappeared, 
while His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, quoting from the document of an official 
from the Eastern section of the royal demesne, was able to tell us that a con¬ 
sumption of 6,000 cartridges per month was not unusual in the process of 
“making rubber.” 



126 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I say that, following the method of 
evaluation given by M. Cattier (“Oh, oh! ” on the extreme left), 
but by basing one’s self on accurate data, one arrives at the figure 
of 18,000,000 francs? * 

M. Vandervelde :—Then you do not take the responsibility for 
this figure? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I am not called upon to establish 
before the House the revenue of the Domaine de la Couronne. But 
I take note of the errors of M. Cattier, and I say that he has been 
mistaken in the proportion of 18,000,000 to 70,000,000 francs. 

M. Delporte :—Your figure is not an accurate figure. It is just 
as though you had said nothing. 

M. de Smet de Naeyers —The House will certainly understand 
the significance of the demonstration I am making at this moment. 
I pass to another point. After having quoted certain properties 
belonging to the Domaine de la Couronne , in the arrondissement 
of Ostend, M. Cattier adds:— 

“ It seems, from official documents which have been submitted to me, that 
the Domaine is also the owner of real estate in a large number of other arron- 
dissements, notably in the provinces of Brabant, Western Flanders, Namur, 
Luxembourg. The fact is very easy to verify .... 

M. Bertrand:— There may be such. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—And the fact; here it is. The Domaine 
de la Couronne only owns real estate in the province of Brabant, and 
in the arrondissement of Brussels, and in that of Louvain, where 
Tervueren is situated. In the province of Western Flanders, the 
Domaine de la Couronne only owns real estate in the arrondissement 
of Ostend. Finally, the Domaine de la Couronne possess no real 
estate in the other Provinces, notably in those of Namur and Luxem¬ 
bourg. 

This disposes of M. Cattier’s second point. 

M. Vandervelde:— M. Cattier declared that it had been impossi¬ 
ble for him to make an inquiry outside Brussels and Ostend, and he 
has shown that in those two cities 18,000,000 francs worth of real 
estate was inscribed in the name of the Domaine de la Couronne. 
This is not disputed, f 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— M. Cattier was in too much of a hurry. 
He might have made inquiry everywhere, because the registrar of the 
survey of lands is a public servant, and the registers of mortgages 
are public documents. He preferred to make a hazardous assertion 
and this assertion is contrary to truth.J 

M. Lorand :—The sum of 18 millions, net product of the Domaine, 
has therefore been exclusively utilised in buying real estate in Bel¬ 
gium. 

M. Vandervelde:— Even in France! 


* The Belgian Prime Minister admits, therefore, that the Sovereign of the 
Congo State has appropriated 18 millions of francs from revenues drawn from 
the Congo territory, which he has not publicly accounted for. Be it noted, 
moreover, that this figure of 18 millions is slightly lower than the total value 
of the transactions in real estate in the arrondissements of only two Belgian 
cities, according to the official records of the Belgian Government, as published 
by M. Cattier! 

t And that is enough! 

t Truth —a la Smet de Naeyer, which is a special and peculiar brand. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 127 

M. Lorand :—And all the other extravagances at which we are 
assisting have been settled by loans with which the Congo is saddled. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You are free to indulge in all these insin¬ 
uations. I leave you the responsibility for them. 

M. Lorand :—That is well understood. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —As far as I am concerned, what I have 
to do at the present moment is to prove the frivolous character of 
M. Cattier’s book. 

M. Vandervelde: —If that is your object, you would be much 
better emploved in giving us positive data. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —In vieAv of the errors which I have just 
pointed out, we may well be amazed to see the irresponsibility with 
which M. Cattier has flung the charges which you know against the 
Congo State and its Sovereign, charges which MM. Lorand and 
Vandervelde have endorsed before Parliament. 

M. Lorand: —I confined mryself to quoting the Report of the 
Commission of Inquiry. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Yes, but you did so with more clever¬ 
ness than sincerity (outcry on the extreme left). Leaving out essen¬ 
tial pages. 

M. Lorand :—I utilised what, the Report recognises. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You have read out carefully-selected 
passages. 

M. Lorand: —And you confine yourself to reading out its rhetori¬ 
cal flowers, and do not attempt to dispute the facts which I brought 
before the House, and which are in the Report. 

M. Vandervelde:— Your methods of debate are lacking in 
courtesy. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—The word “ courtesy,” used by you at 
the present moment, has a strange sound, after your long diatribes 
against absent parties. 

M. Lorand:— But this is quite inaccurate; I cited facts, which 
were not disputed, and to which you have not replied. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— No one can have mistaken your tone of 
acrimony, and your lack of the spirit of justice. 

M. Vendervelde :—The House will recognise that I was courteous. 

M. Lorand: —I quoted the admissions of the Report of the Com¬ 
mission. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— I have several times rendered homage 
to the ability with which M. Vandervelde develops arguments, which 
I am often called upon to oppose, and the same has been the case 
to-day. But no one will deny that he has formulated here charges 
against absent parties, charges of the utmost gravity, the proof of 
which has not been brought. 

M. Lorand: —Pardon. Which ones? I have quoted the admis¬ 
sions of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. You do not 
dispute them. Then what are you complaining about? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You have quoted chosen passages from 
the Report of the Commission, in order to make out, from errors in 
application, and individual faults, an alleged system of barbarous 
oppression and slavish exploitation. 

M. Lorand: —What is the fact which I have stated which you 
dispute ? 


128 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de 8 met de Naeyer :—I have said, and I repeat,, that I do not 
dispute (lie positive fact of abuses and excesses, but I have 
proved . . . ■ . 

M. Lorand :—Nothing at all! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: — ... by quoting the Report of the 
Commission of Inquiry, that it is just to render homage to the 

grandiose work accomplished in the Congo in the last twenty-five 

years. 

M. Lorand :—The Commission found that massacre, pillage, and 
incendiarism are the result of the system of exploitation in existence 
in the Congo. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You continue obstinately to generalise, 
despite all reason and justice . * . . 

M. Lorand:—N o, no. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: — . . . and you are trying to prove 

that reprehensible acts, which are only individual errors,* are a 
system. 

M. Lorand:— No; they have been found by the Commission of 
Inquiry to be the result of the outrageous system of exploitation 
practised by the Congo State. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— If M. Lorand were sent to inquire into 
the Charleroi country, and took note of the exploits of the Longues 
Pennes , would one conclude from his report that the whole of Bel¬ 
gium was a country of savages? 

M. Lorand: —But our receivers of taxes, and our police officers, 
are not Longues Pennes. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Who is speaking of taxes and police 
officers? You denounced inhuman acts, committed in a country 
which is only on the threshold of civilisation, and one need not go 
far to find savage acts in a civilised country. 

M. Lorand: —But not committed by officials. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —If the exploits of the “ longues pennes ” 
do not prove that our peasants are a pack of brigands, abuses com¬ 
mitted by certain agents of the State or of the commercial companies 
do not prove that cruelty and rapine are erected into a system! 

I come, gentlemen, to a third error of M. Cattier’s. The assertion 

* Is it an individual error for a so-called Government to violate its own 
laws, and impose forced labour, unlimited by time, upon its subjects for 
eleven years? Is it an individual error for a Government, suddenly, on the 
brink of being exposed for this illegality, to draft a law making legal forced 
labour for forty hours a month, knowing full well that its financial collapse 
would follow the application of so restricted a measure of coercion? Is it 
an individual error for a Government to declare in official circulars that the 
revenues derived from the labour of its subjects must show a “ progressive 
increase,” under the forty hours law, over the revenues formerly obtained 
when that enforced labour was unlimited by time? Is it an individual error 
for a Government to issue secret circulars, offering bonuses to its agents on 
rubber, ivory and men, under conditions providing a direct incentive to 
atrocity? Is it an individual error for a Governor-General, and District Com¬ 
missioners, to authorise the taking of hostages to coerce the people into pro¬ 
ducing greater quantities of rubber? Is it an individual error for a Govern¬ 
ment to issue fradulent balance sheets? Is it an individual error for a 
Government to declare that all the revenues derived by it from the enforced 
labour imposed upon its people are paid into its Treasury, when its Sovereign 
has been secretly appropriating millions from those revenues for years? Is it 
an individual error for a Government to appropriate the land and the products 
of the land of a territory 800,000 square miles in extent, expropriating 15 
millions of human beings therefrom, and converting them into slaves? 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 129 

of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the net prod¬ 
uct of the loan on the lottery system, estimated by M. Cattier at 50 
millions, was not more than seven or eight millions, has been con¬ 
tested. Proof of it, however, is to be found in the letter which 
M. Van Eetvelde addressed to me in February, 1895.* The Secretary 
of State of the Congo State informed me in this communication 
that the Congo Government had just issued 211,875 bonds for this 
Loan, and that in case of annexation the Government of the Congo 
State would have to remit to the Belgian Government the sum of 
1,415,780.51 francs, or about 6.65 francs per bond. That was the 
net profit left from the issue per bond on this Loan, after payment to 
the guarantee fund, payment of commissions to intermediaries, and 
deduction of divers expenses. Up to date, 900,000 bonds have been 
issued. The mean profit may be estimated at 7 francs per bond. 
The total profit acquired by the State amounts to 6,300,000 francs, 
instead of 50 millions (laughter on the right). Here is an error 
which is on all fours with that with which I dealt a moment ago on 
the subject of the Domaine de la Couronne. The sum of 2,922,000 
francs, inscribed in the Budget for the service of the debt, comprises 
2,540,555 francs for interest, the surplus consisting of charges on the 
sinking fund account, and expenditure estimates. This interest cor¬ 
responds to a nominal capital of 67,432,000 francs, the amount of the 
issued bonds. 

M. Bertrand : —A year ago you said 41 millions. Since then, 
therefore, 26 additional millions have been borrowed. To what 
purposes have they been utilised ? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— You will not lure me into discussing the 
management of the finances of the Congo State .... 

M. Bertrand : — I merely note that a year ago you spoke of a debt 
of 41 millions, and that the debt is now one of 67 millions. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I am dealing at the moment with M. 
Cattier’s errors, and the House will realise that it is a formidable 
task (laughter). I take again, therefore, the figure I have just 
quoted. That figure is 67,432,200 francs. In the sitting of February 
28th, 1905, I told M. Bertrand that he was mixing up the nominal 
capital of the loans with the effective yield. Thus the 30 millions 
at 3 per cent, only produced 22 millions, or a difference of 8 millions, 
which reduces the product of this debt to 59,400,000 francs; adding 
thereto the sum derived from the lottery loan of 6,300,000 francs, we 
arrive at the figure of 65,700,000 francs, received by the State from 
the bonds issued; the ordinary deficits of the State Budgets amount 
to 27,000,000 francs. There remains a sum of 38,700,000 francs, 
instead of the 103 millions of which M. Cattier speaks (outcry on the 
right). So much for the third point. And we are asked to give 
faith to a work written with shell inaccuracy, and with such a con¬ 
tempt for truth. We refuse to associate ourselves with such views f 
(applause on the right). 


* Eleven years before! Fancy, moreover, going to M. Van Eetvelde for 
truth; the very gentleman who denied, in a diplomatic correspondence ex¬ 
changed with Count Alvensleben, the German Minister at Brussels, that any 
bonuses were being paid to agents of the State on rubber and ivory! 

f The reader is referred to M. Vandervelde’s speech in the course of the 
fourth day’s debate. 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-9 



130 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES. 


M. Bertrand : —Let the Congo State then publish its accounts as 
it publishes its Budgets. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The hour is getting late, and I ask to be 
allowed to continue to-morrow. (Assent.) 

M. Vanderyelde: —I ask to be heard, to ventilate a personal 
matter. 

The Speaker : —M. Vandervelde is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. VANDERVELDE. 

M. Vandervelde: —Gentlemen, in the course of his speech, the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer read out a number of notes, which I 
must confess have given me the impression of having been drawn up 
in the offices of a foreign State (laughter on the left and extreme 
left). One of these notes alleged that M. Vandervelde had referred 
to Belgian officials placed at the disposal of the Congo State, merely 
u to formulate a charge against a magistrate and vice-consul, which 
the protests of the accused parties had immediately disposed of.” I 
at once drew attention to this statement of the Minister’s, which is 
altogether inaccurate. In the course of my interpellation, I recalled 
that M. Cattier, in his book, said that a portion of the revenues of the 
Domaine de la Couronne had been employed in subsidising a Press 
Bureau, where special pleadings were concocted in favour of the Congo 
State. To emphasise the statement of M. Cattier, I revealed, and 
the fact has not been denied, that one of the newspapers of the capital 
had received 500 francs per month from the Congo State. When I 
brought this forward, the Minister for Justice sought to make me 
say that these funds had been distributed by the head of the Press 
Bureau—that is to say, by a magistrate, and afterwards by a vice- 
consul. I absolutely declined to make such an assertion, for the 
simple reason that I was ignorant, at the time, who were the 
people who had actually distributed these funds to the Press. 
What I declared was that at the head of the Press Bureau, whose 
mission was the concoction of special pleadings on behalf of the Congo 
State, was placed, first a magistrate paid by the Belgian Government, 
and later on a vice-consul on sick leave, who continued to draw a 
salary from the Belgian Government. No one has denied these facts; 
consequently, everything which I have said, I maintain. On the one 
hand, we note that subsidies are paid to the Press. On the other 
hand, we note this fact, which I consider profoundly to be deplored, 
that Belgian officials have been placed at the disposal of the Congo 
State, while being paid by Belgium, to draw up special pleadings in 
favour of a foreign State. That is what I had to say, and nothing 
that I have said has been disposed of by the interested parties. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —I limited myself to showing that M. Van¬ 
dervelde, after having announced an interpellation, which was to 
have constituted a judicial criticism, had entirely gone outside his 
programme, and that he had, notably, not concluded by demanding 
the withdrawal of the authority granted to Belgian officials to help 
the Congo State. I noted in addition that two officials, accused by M. 
Vandervelde, had immediately protested against certain imputations, 
of which they had thought themselves the object. 

M. Vandervelde: —Pardon me, you said .... 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — Bead the shorthand notes. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 131 


M. Vandervelde:—C ertainly. I have just read them. This is 
what they say:— 

“ If M. Vandervelde spoke of Belgian officials placed at the disposal of the 
Congo State, it was merely to formulate a charge against a magistrate and a 
vice-consul, which the protests of the interested parties immediately disposed of.” 

Now, the only charge I brought against these gentlemen was of hav¬ 
ing directed a Press Bureau while receiving payment from the Belgian 
Government. The Government has not denied that, and therefore I 
fail to understand your meaning when you assert that my charges 
have been disposed of. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —If 1 was led to refer to these officials, it 
was to make clear that no blamable circumstance could be imputed to 
them. 

M. Vandervelde: —If that was the meaning of your language, the 
personal incident exists no longer. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—Moreover, I attach very small importance 
to the incident, which has been settled between M. Vandervelde and 
my colleagues for Foreign Affairs and for Justice. But I must add 
that there is a way of saddling people with an unpleasant charge, 
without directly imputing it. 

M. Vandervelde: —Pardon me. I cannot allow you to say that. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —When persons are accused, the accusation 
should be formulated in precise terms. 

M. Vandervelde :— I ask to be heard. 

M. de Favereau: —The Hon. M. Vandervelde has just repeated the 
charges he made. Acts of corruption had been carried on with a 
newspaper of the capital, and immediately afterwards he spoke of the 
part played by the Press Bureau. The persons who heard him might 
have the impression that there was a close connection of cause and 
effect between the two statements. Yesterday, my colleague for Jus¬ 
tice read you the letter from M. Bolin, and I read you the letter from 
M. Goff art: then M. Vandervelde recognised that he had had no 
intention of imputing to M. Bolin or to M. Goffart participation of 
any kind in an act of corruption. 

M. Vandervelde:— What I did was to repeat my former observa¬ 
tions. 

M. de Favereau :—Moreover, the statement of the hon. member was 
drawn from the book of M. Cattier, and hon. members will have read 
M. Cattier’s letter in the Independance Beige , in which M. Cattier 
denies that he had it in mind to suspect the two officials of having 
been mixed up in any way in the act denounced. 

M. Vandervelde :—Gentlemen, if I insist once more upon this inci¬ 
dent, it is because, after having withdrawn from it any personal 
character, the Minister closed with a charge which wounds me 
greatly, and which consists in stating that, not daring to affirm cer¬ 
tain things, I insinuated them .... 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :— I confined myself to reproducing an im¬ 
pression which might have been formed by hearing and reading your 
words. 

M. Vandervelde:— Now, what took place? I followed the order 
which I found in M. Cattier’s book, and I spoke successively of the 
Press Bureau, and of subsidies to Belgian and foreign newspapers. 
If I was not understood, it is not my fault, but the fault of listeners 


132 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPBESENTATIVES. 

who appear inclined to wish to impute to me unfriendly intentions. 
J am sufficiently concerned, in the course of the discussions in which I 
participate, to use loyalty in my statements, not to attach more impor ¬ 
tance than it deserves to the charge of the Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer. 

The Speaker :—The incident is closed. 

FOURTH DAY’S DEBATE (MARCH 1ST). 

Speeches by 

M. Beernaert ( Ex-Minister of State). 

M. Carton de Wiart ( Catholic , brother of the King's 
Private Secretary). 

M. Vandervelde ( Leader of the Labour Party). 

M. Masson (Liberal). 

M. de Smet de Naeyer ( Premier , Minister of the Inte¬ 
rior and Chancellor of the Exchequer). 

M. Hymans (Liberal): 

De heer P. Daens (Independent Catholic). 

M. Helleptttte (Catholic). 

M. Colfs (Catholic) , and others. 

The Speaker: —We resume, gentlemen, M. Vandervelde’s interpel¬ 
lation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in command of the 
House. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I abstain from speaking at the present 
moment, reserving myself for later on, after the House has heard 
other speakers. 

The Speaker :—M. Beernaert is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. BEERNAERT. 

M. Beernaert:— Gentlemen, I am only speaking in order to jus¬ 
tify my Resolution. I shall do so in a few words, because the dis¬ 
cussion which has been opened does not appear to me to be calculated 
to bring about any positive solution. I need hardly recall all my 
reasons for’ being greatly interested in the Congo enterprise. I 
gave it my support at a time when the King was practically con¬ 
fronted with sceptics. It is I who asked Parliament to vote the 
necessary authority for the fusion of the two crowns. I obtained, 
in favour of the Stanley Pool Railway, the intervention of the Bel¬ 
gian Treasury. I got Parliament to approve unanimously, with one 
exception, and with the eloquent assistance of M. Janson, of the 
Convention of the 3rd July, 1890, which, conditional with financial 
help, assured us the right of taking over the Congo, together with 
useful control. A little later, the revised Constitution prepared the 
legal way for annexation. Finally, as you know, I took, in 1901, 
with a few friends, the initiative of a projected law providing for 
the immediate exercise of the right of annexing the Congo, which 
right Belgium then possessed. In 1895, before the time agreed upon, 
the same initiative had been taken in the name of the Government, 
by Count de Merode Westerloo, but this projected law was with 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 183 

drawn, and when the Convention expired, the Government of that 
day showed itself hesitating, almost hostile. Hence, gentlemen, onr 
proposal for annexation, which we only abandoned when faced by " 
the refusal of all help, not only from the Belgian State, but also and 
especially from the Congo State, a refusal accentuated by the letter 
which M. Woeste thought it advisable to recall to you yesterday. 

Those, gentlemen, are pages in our contemporary history which 
have a very powerful interest for me. But this is not the time to re¬ 
call these events. Belgium to-day has no right whatever to take over 
the Congo, and it is deliberately, voluntarily, but against my wishes, 
that she renounced that right under the form of an ill-defined ad¬ 
journment. Freely also, and after examination, did Parliament 
renounce all control and all demand for information, which the pre¬ 
ceding Convention assured to our country, and gave to the Congo 
State its full liberty of management and borrowing powers. These 
are matters which we may regret, and I need hardly tell the House 
that this is my personal feeling. But we are face to face with 
accomplished facts. In 1895, the Government, not altogether in 
agreement with. itself, retreated before a badly-prepared Public 
Opinion, and notably before the furious opposition of the Socialist 
Party to all colonial policy. In 1901 we were faced with insur¬ 
mountable difficulties, forithe Congo State refused any prolongation, 
however temporary, of the existing regime , and absolutely nothing 
had been prepared in Belgium with a view to annexation. Once 
more, again, these are facts, and it is useless to discuss them. We 
must take the situation as we find it, but, after the long debate to 
which this interpellation has given rise, can we keep silent, and could 
we even admit a pure and simple Order of the Day? I do not think 
so. There are too many common interests, too many links of all 
kinds, past sacrifices, present pre-occupations, future prospects, be¬ 
tween Belgium and the Congo. Hence my Resolution, and it seems 
to me of a nature to obtain large support. There is one point. I 
think, upon which we are all agreed, and that is the necessity of 
elaborating the projected organic law to settle the administration 
of the future Belgian Colony in case of annexation. Indeed, M. 
Vandervelde, who to-day is less hostile to the colonial idea than he 
wes previously, admits it. The Resolution proposed by M. Masson 
and his friends accentuates this desire, in terms almost analogous with 
those which I myself have used. And how could the Government 
resist it, when it is its own proposal which we ask Parliament to 
examine without further delay? Urgency for the proposal of the 
7th August, 1901, was fully justified. It was stated in the preamble 
of that proposal that it is highly desirable that no uncertainty 
should exist as to the regime to which the future Belgian Colony 
will be submitted, ensuring the transitional period between the pres¬ 
ent union and annexation being carried on without difficulties or 
friction. On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce of Ant¬ 
werp, and others, expressed the wish to see this organic law elaborated 
without delay, and how was it possible not to have insisted upon it 
since it was due to the absence of such a law that the immediate 
annexation of the Congo had been set aside? Such, gentlemen, was 
the language held in 1901, but five years have passed, without any 
attempt having been made to grapple with this work, the urgency 


134 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 

of which had been proclaimed. Neither the Government nor the 
Chambers have breathed a word with regard to it. Here, again, T 
do not wish to quarrel with the past. But at least we are unanimous, 
I think, in considering that these delays have been more than suffi¬ 
cient ; that it is necessary to put an end to them; and that the Con¬ 
stitution, having provided for the acquisition of Colonies with a 
special regime , it is essential to settle the latter as soon as possible 
by determining the conditions under which such Colonies shall be 
administered and financially organised. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— That is absolutely the opinion of the 
Government. 

M. Beernaert:— I am happy to hear you say so, but perhaps you 
might have acted before. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— This is absolutely the opinion of the 
that score, they should be made, not against the Government, but 
against the House, because the difficulty of passing laws, whose 
urgency everyone agrees to, must be borne in mind. 

M. Beernaert:— The House might, indeed, have asked for news 
of the proposed law, which has remained in its pigeon holes; but 
the forgetfulness of its authors is perhaps more curious. However 
that may be, I do not wish to reproach anyone, but here again let 
me emphasise the fact that we are all ^unanimous on this point, 
Socialists, Liberals, Catholics and Government; we all urge that the 
examination of an organic law for the colonies shall no longer be 
delayed. If the work of the House does not enable it to discuss the 
matter this session, which is now almost closed, it should be one of 
its earliest pre-occupations in Autumn. I pass, gentlemen, to my 
Resolution, properly so-called, and I think that it also deserves the 
approval of this assembly. Even looked at from a distance, the 
work of the King in Africa appears gigantic, and the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer said with truth that it was unjust not to recognise 
that it has contributed powerfully to awaken a spirit of enterprise, 
industrial activity, taste for distant expeditions and business in 
Belgium. That was, gentlemen, and I think it necessary to repeat 
it, a very great service rendered to the country. When this con¬ 
ception, which then appeared almost risky, was submitted to the 
Conference at Berlin, it was appreciated as it deserved to be, and 
the Protocols of that assembly are inspired with the most generous 
and philanthropic spirit. To carry out his views, the King had the 
good fortune to find in the army, amongst the clergy, amongst those 
missionaries of whom M. Verhaegen has spoken to you so eloquently, 
and also amongst administrators and men of science, devotion both 
striking and obscure, to which we have not, perhaps, always given 
a sufficiency of praise. Well, gentlemen, when in the opening words 
of my Resolution, I ask you to applaud once more the grandeur 
of the conception, the liberal and generous spirit with which the 
Congo was admitted into the family of nations, the numberless 
sacrifices of all kinds which have been made for it, even of life 
itself, am I not entitled to rely upon your universal approval? (Gen¬ 
eral assent.) 

But, in the course of the last few years, grave divergencies have 
arisen in the vast basin of Central Africa, notably as regards the 
organisation of property, of labour, and of taxation, and on this 
subject fierce polemics have taken place in Belgium and elsewhere. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 135 

Much might be said on this subject, and if we were called upon 
now to discuss these questions, there is more than one point upon 
which I should find myself compelled to differ from the opinions 
given here yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I could 
not, for instance, agree with what he said with regard to forced 
labour, a system which so easily leads back to slavery under a new 
form, from which it differs but little (applause on the left and on 
the extreme left). It is true that we have seen some of our writers 
declare that the negro is barely a man, and that the negress is only 
cattle! (Outcry.) 

M. Janson:— These views have no echo in the country (applause 
on the opposition benches). These ideas contain their own refuta¬ 
tion, and do not redound to the honour of those who put them for¬ 
ward (applause on the same benches). 

M. Beernaert:— I am not astonished to hear M. Janson express 
in this matter an opinion similar to mine. Yes, certainly these 
sentiments find no echo in our country, but in reading them one is 
conscious of the most painful and the most detestable impression 
(applause on the same benches). One asks one’s self how it can be 
possible that, after nineteen centuries of Christianity, arguments 
can be revived which thinkers already found intolerable before 
Christianity appeared in the world (loud applause). 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— These arguments have never found de¬ 
fenders in Parliament.* 

M. Beernaert:— I am convinced of it, and it was good to make 
it plain. Apart from these questions of principle, grave abuses have 
been committed, and not only in the Congo, nor even in Africa 
only, but nearly everywhere where colonies exist. 

M. Janson:— That is true. 

M. Beernaert : — And one must acknowledge with sorrow, but with 
truth, that the European, in playing the part of civiliser, which 
he attributes and confers upon himself, is not always very pleasant 
to look upon (applause on many benches). In the Congo, apart 
from the administrative system existing, the abuses were facilitated 
by the enormous territory and the distances.* But the State wished 
to find out matters for itself. Hence the formation of the Commission 
of Inquiry, the impartiality of which cannot be doubted. The 
Report of that Commission is in your hands, and assuredly you 
have all read that very grave document. It is not denied that 
important reforms must result from it, and these are being studied. 
We are told that the work of this second Commission is ended, and 
that its Report will be published immediately.f Under these condi¬ 
tions, is it possible for the Belgian House, being insufficiently in¬ 
formed, to profess to substitute its views for those of the Commis¬ 
sioners who have been on the spot? Is it admissible that we should 
criticise and discuss the proposals of the Commission for Reforms, 
which we do not even know ? This would be absolutely inadmissible, 
the more so as we do not possess the necessary details, for we have 
renounced the right of demanding them. We can no longer obtain 

* “ The native is entitled to nothing. What is given him is a pure gra¬ 
tuity.”—M. de Smet de Naeyer in the Belgian House, 1903. 

t A promise, like so many others from the same quarter, which has not been 
fulfilled. 




136 ' CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

accounts or information of any kind, and, notwithstanding our 
triple position of presumptive heirs, furnishers of men and money, 
and creditors, we are, from the juridical point of view, in exactly 
the same situation towards the Congo as the other States represented 
at the Conference of Berlin. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—That is quite accurate. 

M. Beernaert: —Alas! I think, therefore, that we must await the 
proposals which have been announced, and especially the carrying out 
of these proposals, which I hope will be at once executed. That was 
the opinion expressed by the Washington Cabinet the other day, and 
the new London Cabinet, replying to an English deputation on Afri¬ 
can matters, held the same language. But if we must wait, I think 
it is useful that Parliament should now applaud the spirit which ani¬ 
mated the Commission of Inquiry, and that Parliament should en¬ 
courage the Commission of Reforms, and that would certainly not 
mean, as M. Coifs seems to think, an approval of everything which 
has taken, place on the Congo. No one here thinks of giving such 
approval, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any of our col¬ 
leagues. What I praise, gentlemen, and what I ask you to praise, is 
the announcement made of necessary reforms, and the examination in 
regard to which is taking place. I do not think we need go further. 
This, however, is what M. Vandervelde proposes. Without bringing 
his speech to any very definite conclusion, he expressed the wish to 
see the House organise on its own account a Parliamentary Inquiry, 
with the object of studying the necessary measures to ensure the pres¬ 
ervation of the native peoples, and the amelioration of their condi¬ 
tions of existence; as also of the financial consequences for Belgium 
which would ensue if the Congo State became a Belgian Colony. I 
ask on what ground could we organise such investigations, and by 
virtue of what authority could we demand information which we 
formally renounced by the much-to-be-regretted vote I referred to a 
few moments ago. How could the Belgian State put forward such 
demands in regard to a State which is acting in its full independence? 
It would leave itself open to a refusal, in the face of which no retort 
could be given. The Hon. M. Vandervelde, who a short while ago 
was hostile to all idea of colonial expansion, cannot wish, assuredly, 
that we should consider to-day annexation in the light of an accom¬ 
plished fact: Similar objections appear to me to set aside in certain 
respects the Resolution proposed bv M. Masson and his friends. 
Here again, gentlemen, my opinion is that we should go beyond that 
which we can do, beyond .... 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —This is obvious. 

M. Beernaert:— . . . Beyond what our juridical situation 

permits of. I think, on the contrary, that the wording of the Resolu¬ 
tion I propose is sheltered from similar criticisms, and I think I may, 
therefore, submit it with confidence to the approval of the House (ap¬ 
plause on numerous benches). 

M. Coles : —I demand to be heard, to present a Resolution. 

The Speaker :—You are in command of the House. 

RESOLUTION BY M. COLFS. 

M. Colfs: —Gentlemen, confirming the conclusions of my speech of 
yesterday, and in order to obtain a Resolution which does not go be¬ 
yond juridical rights recognised to Belgium, such as thev have just 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 137 


been defined bv M. Beernaert, I have the honour to propose the fol¬ 
lowing Resolution:— 

“ The Chamber, considering that grave abuses take place in the Congo; con¬ 
sidering that, notwithstanding reiterated promises, they have not been remedied; 
considering that it results from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, that, 
‘ officers commanding expeditions against natives have thought themselves at 
war, have acted as though they were at war, and that that was, moreover, the 
intention of their chiefs,’ without the superior authorities having even dissuaded 
them from doing so; calls upon the Government to suspend the authorisation 
to Belgian officers to go to the Congo, until a new state of affairs has been in¬ 
augurated. compatible with the dignity of the Belgian Army, and passes to the 
Order of the Day.” 

The Speaker : — M. Carton de Wiart is in command of the House. 


SPEECH BY M. CARTON DE WIART. 

M. Carton de Wiart : — Gentlemen, if the only matter at stake here 
was the Resolution of the Hon. M. Beernaert, I should hesitate to 
intervene in the discussion after the authoritative speech to which we 
have just listened, but there are other matters. There is the interpel¬ 
lation itself; there is the book which gave rise to it; there are the 
comments upon that book, and upon the Report itself, which have 
been made by M. Vandervelde and other speakers. 

M. Vandervelde : — The Report of the Commission was the motive 
of the interpellation. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— There is also the echo which these com¬ 
ments have had, or may have had, here, and elsewhere, in the country, 
and outside the country; outside, in encouraging, perhaps, certain 
jealousies, and a certain covetousness—which is always on the look¬ 
out, and which does not conduce to the interest either of the Congo 
enterprise or of Belgium herself; here, at home, in discouraging the 
marvelous effort which induces a large number of our citizens, 
especially among the coming generation, to extend their studies, to 
push their energies far beyond the traditional area of our expansion, 
beyond our frontiers, beyond the seas, in order to ensure to our over¬ 
whelming activity the conquest of new markets. From that point of 
view, gentlemen, I think it is not sufficient to say, as we all say, that 
there is something to be reformed on the Congo. It is not sufficient to 
state that this immense country has reached a degree of development 
which allows it, which compels it even, to give greater heed to views 
which would have been impossible of thorough application during 
the period of the State’s organisation. We are all agreed on this 
point, and the speech of the Hon. M. Beernaert has demonstrated the 
fact, following the speeches of M. Woeste and that of the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs. But there are two ways of pointing out abuses, 
two ways of demanding reforms, two ways of satisfying complaints. 
When one discovers an error or a weakness in a person in whom one 
is interested, in an enterprise which one loves, and which one sincerely 
wishes to prosper, one points out the abuses, no doubt, but one is 
grieved about them, and one does not exaggerate them. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : — Precisely. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— On the contrary, when one discovers a 
weakness in an adversary, or in an enterprise which one systematically 
abuses, one triumphs over that abuse; one gives way easily to the 
temptation of overwhelming the adversary under the weight of his 


138 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 

fault, after having exaggerated its gravity. Now this is what I ask 
the interpolator. Is your intervention brought about by the wish 
to ensure the preservation and the progress of a Belgian colonial 
enterprise? Are you attacking the fault, or are you attacking the 
patient? Is it the fault or is it the patient whom you wish to dis¬ 
appear? We have the right to know it, and to find it out (applause 
on the right). 

M. Bertrand : — Ask M. Coifs! 

M. Neujean:— Is there, then, a patient? 

M. Carton de Wiart:— And I affirm that M. Yandervelde is play¬ 
ing to the gallery. He spoke with decency, almost with praise, of 
our missionaries. Almost, thanks to his habitual ability, he would 
have allowed us to believe that interest in Belgian colonization alone 
inspired him, and when I listened to his measured language, I re¬ 
called the pretty fable of the wolf who became shepherd (laughter 
on the right). 

It is well, however, that your policy should be recalled (and the 
Hon. M. Beernaert has just made an opportune allusion to it), so 
that neither here nor abroad shall anyone be misled as to the authority 
which attaches to your words. It is well that it should be known 
that your programme, your manifestoes, and your past, are system¬ 
atically condemnatory of colonisation. The Socialist Congress of 
London in 1896 condemned it in these words:— 

“ The Congress declares that whatever may be the religious or so-called 
civilising pretext of colonial policy, it is but the extension of capitalistic 
exploits in the exclusive interest of the capitalist classes.” 

More recently, in the midst of this Assembty, an interesting debate 
was brought about by the proposal for a Belgian expedition to 
China, after the Boxer insurrection. On that occasion, a member 
of the extreme left, M. Allard, rose and solemnly declared—this 
was on the 11th December, 1900—“As for us, we shall always combat 
colonial policy with vigour and with energy, either in Africa or in 
Asia,” and the shorthand reports mention “ applause on the Socialist 
benches.” The day before yesterday, when M. Woeste, at the close 
of his speech, sought to encourage all those whose devotion and activ¬ 
ity are enlisted on behalf of the Congo enterprise, a member of the 
Socialist left interrupted him, saying, “ What will the missionaries 
say to these encouragements?” That member was M. Allard. Gen¬ 
tlemen, I admire and I respect the Congo missionaries. I have 
among them more than one friend. I am honoured to have had as 
Professor the Rev. Father Cus, who has been mentioned in this debate. 
This large-hearted man, this apostle, after having been the most 
active organiser of our agricultural co-operative movement, which 
regenerated the Luxembourg, devoted his life in India, and then in 
the Congo, to the service of Christian colonisation. But I cannot 
help smiling, and I am convinced that if the missionaries read our 
debates, they will have the same feeling, to note the unexpected inter¬ 
est manifested towards them by the Socialists left. In 1900, in the 
course of the discussion which took place here after the massacres of 
Manchuria, when Monsignor Hanner had been murdered, flayed, 
and finally burnt in Mongolia, with other missionaries, belonging 
principally to the Scheut Mission (who thus paid with their lives 
for their devotion to civilisation), was a word of sympathy uttered 
from your benches to these heroes? No. At that moment, M. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF liEPKESENTATIVES. 139 

Allard was content to denounce the enterprise of missionaries of all 
denominations as an intollerant, aggressive and unhappy propaganda, 
backed up by diplomatic and military action, a perpetual source of 
conflicts, and generator or hatred. And each time that there has 
been a question of our expansion in distant lands, of what many be 
termed the Belgian problem par excellence , whose solution interests 
so closely the lot of our laborious population, in an industrial country 
where seven million inhabitants are packed in less than three millions 
of hectares , what has been your attitude? One of the first oratorical 
manifestations of the Socialist Party in the House consisted in de¬ 
manding the suppression of our diplomatic representation (which is 
considered on the benches of the extreme left as merely decorative, 
and as a pretext for ostentation). When the Government consented 
to send abroad a few Belgian officers to study or to prepare the way 
for Belgian enterprise, with what vigour did you not protest, as if, 
in truth, these officers, sent temporarily to the Far East, to Persia, or 
to South America, were robbing the Belgian Treasury by the few 
thousands of francs which their salaries represent, as if, in thus 
helping us to open up new markets, they were not giving as many, 
and perhaps more services, to the country than if they were stationed 
in their garrisons. And when a few of us argued on these benches 
in favour of the development of our merchant marine, how were 
those arguments received on the extreme left? They were met with 
criticism and scorn, or with charges of servility. But to-day there 
are no more attacks, either against the missionaries or against the 
principle of colonisation. Nay, do I not find the signature of the 
Hon. M. Vandervelde at the foot of the Resolution proposed by M. 
Masson, which expresses the desire:— 

“ That the Central Committee should he called together without delay, in 
order to examine the projected law of the 7th August, 1901, on the government 
of the Colonial possessions of Belgium.” 

What are we to understand by this? Here you are associating 
yourselves with a movement calculated to hasten, by preparing 
it, that very annexation which you have always fought.* Do you 
at last feel that Public Opinion is not with you, that notwithstanding 
your campaign, however vehement, the nation is definitely familiar¬ 
ised with the idea of a Belgian Congo ? Do you feel that the country 
is won over to this enterprise, that it realises that out there under the 
Equator is a country eighty times the size of Belgium, but on which 
some of Belgium’s personality has been grafted? f Ho you at last 
realise that this enterprise, brought about by the persevering genius 
of the Sovereign, and in which so many of our sons, Statesmen, mis¬ 
sionaries, engineers, explorers, officers have laboured, and often sacri¬ 
ficed their lives, that this work, I say, Belgium intends shall remain 
Belgian, and that Public Opinion will be as resolute to protect it 
against internal abuse as against external attacks, wherever they may 
come from? (Applause on the right.) If it was in this spirit that 
you brought forward your interpellation, and signed the Resolution 


* The intolerable scandals of the Congo, and the way in which they have 
compromised, and are compromising, the Belgian name abroad, have led M. 
Vandervelde and some other Socialists to consider that even annexation would 
be a lesser evil than the present state of affairs. 

t For the honour of Belgium, it has been the personality, not her people, but 
of her King, which has been “ grafted ” on the Congo. 





1 40 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 


of M. Masson, I shall rejoice. Then would this assembly, notwith¬ 
standing party differences, vibrate with a common feeling. But this 
is not how you have acted up to the present. You are not even argu¬ 
ing and acting in this sense to-day. What was your speech? A 
systematic quintessence of the attacks formulated against the Congo 
State for some years past. The marvellous development of the Congo 
State, its actual riches, those which it is supposed to hold in the 
future, have given birth to jealousies.* * * § Criticism has been violent. 
We measure the grandeur of the work by the attacks which it pro¬ 
vokes, as we measure the height of an edifice by the shadow which it 
throws upon the ground. At the same time undeniable abuses, which 
are the ordinary and fatal accompaniment, it would seem, of the 
seizure by European nations of new territory, have provoked sym¬ 
pathy, which I think sincere, with the native population. Interests 
of a political or mercantile order have helped sentimental sympathies. 
These interests find therein a double profit. As it has been said, 
“ Their good first and then the evil of others.”f These attacks—in 
which good faith and more or less impractical sentimentality are 
mixed up with ambitions of quite another character, which have 
notably increased as the prosperity of the State has increased J— 
these attacks you have welcomed with the same warmth, and the 
^ame ardour, and the same enthusiasm. One reserve, however. M. 
Vandervelde, speaking on the 19th March, 1903, on the Burrows’ dis¬ 
closures, which had just taken place, and which were provoking a 
great sensation,§ said:— 

“ I cannot help adding that I have been profoundly moved by certain of their 
statements, and by the documents which they produce.” 

And, on the strength of Burrows’ statement, the Hon. M. Vandervelde 
enumerated a series of horrors which one might have thought bor¬ 
rowed from the Jardin des Supplices of Octave Mirbeau.l] Then he 
added, having reproduced them, that “ We must wait the decision of 
the English judges ” before pronouncing on the value of these 
charges. The decision of the English judges came. It was over¬ 
whelming for the forger and the calumniator, and what did M. Van¬ 
dervelde then say? You heard him on Tuesday:— 

“We asked ourselves ”—he insinuated—“if this publication was not a trap, 
and if the Congo State had not itself raised up an adversary so easily con¬ 
founded.” 

This, gentlemen, is Socialist mentality taken sur le vif! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Very good. 

M. Carton de Wiart: — "What! A blackmailer attacks our offi¬ 
cers, and others of our citizens; these charges are reproduced with 


* On whose part? To be jealous of the Congo is to be jealous of a revolting 
enterprise, jealous of riches acquired by the slaughter and misery of innumer¬ 
able natives. If the Congo State’s critics were imbued with a hatred of Belgium, 
they would rejoice in the thought of the future nemesis which probably awaits 
her. 

t What interests? 

t The beneficiaries from the slave labour of the Congo people are alone pros¬ 
perous. The Congo territory is becoming rapidly impoverished. 

§ They provoked no sensation in England. 

I! They pale beside the revelations produced before the Congo Commission of 
Inquiry, which the Congo Government has not dared to publish. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 141 

^ ome reserve since they have come before the Courts; he is con¬ 
demned by the Courts of his own country; thereupon, because the 
Congo enterprise must be always, and notwithstanding everything, 
attacked, the accuser becomes an agent 'provocateur , and his infamy 
]s used as a new weapon against the Congo State (outcry on the 
extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde :—I declared to the House on the very first day 
that the book of Burrows seemed to me to be suspicious. 

M. Carton de Wiart: —You made the reserves which I have re¬ 
called to-dav. To-day you say that Burrows was an agent provoca¬ 
teur. Moreover, that is your method. Each time that an excess 
places you in a position of embarrassment, each time that one of your 
auxiliaries goes too far, he is an agent provocateur (applause on the 
right). But, before launching such ignominious charges against the 
State, would it not be better to sample them at least bv a beginning: of 
proof? „ * * 

M. Lorand :—-All we have done has been to quote from the Report 
of the Commission of Inquiry. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You have falsified its spirit (protests on 
the extreme left). 

M. Lorand :—It would be impossible for you to deny the facts 
pointed out and admitted by the Commission. Thus you are pleading 
on one side. 

M. Carton de Wiart :—I know. We plead on one side each time 
we reply to you ! 

M. Vandervelde: —We know only too well that agents provocateurs 
exist elsewhere than in our imagination. 

M. Carton de Wiart: —They are chiefly the products of your 
imagination (applause on the right). 

M. Lorand :—But there have been some. Remember Pourbaix. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— If you wish to discuss that matter once 
more, around which you sought to create a legend, we can do so in due 
time and place. 

M. Lorand :—Everybody remembers Pourbaix, and the Mons trial. 
Discussion took place here on that subject, and it was then said that 
in those events a certain Minister had been tarnished. 

M. J anson:— You would be much better employed in replying to 
the charges contained in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, 
instead of making speeches which have nothing to do with the subject. 

M. Carton de Wiart: —I bow before vour experience, my dear 
colleague. All the same, you will allow me to decline your lessons. 
I am replying to what M. Vandervelde said, and it even seems, from 
his annoyance, that my reply is a very good one (applause on the 
right—protests on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand: —You are not answering anything at all! 

M. Carton de Wiart:— On the 23rd July, 1904, the Congo State 
determined to make an inquiry. It is a normal and excellent pro¬ 
cedure ; everywhere where colonies exist there are, and there must be, 
inquiries. Colonies only progress through inquiries. 

M. Neujean :—We agree. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— England proceeds in the same way. We 
know that she instituted inquiries in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Basutu- 
land, Nigeria and Natal, on account of the grave abuses which the 


142 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


imposition of the hut tax brought about.* In the German and 
French Colonies these inquiries have revealed abuses. Moreover, 
abuses are the raison d'etre of inquiries, and that is why the latter are 
instituted. A great many honest people amongst us do not appear to 
understand this. Let them re-read our inquiry on labour in 1886. 
Let them re-read our inquiry on the lower middle class, which has 
just been published, and which contains interminable protests against 
innumerable abuses. When the inquiry has been ended, what is 
done? Note is taken of what it has revealed, and abuses are corrected 
to the extent in which it is possible. And then? Other abuses will 
take place, because they are the necessary accompaniment of all 
human institutions. A philosopher was led to say, and not without 
reason, that the greatest abuse is that which consists in not tolerating 
any. The Report of the Inquiry is published. It is a remarkable 
document, and a very interesting one. One may even ask one’s self 
how, is such a short stay in the Congo, from the 5th October, 1904, to 
the 21st February, 1905, these honourable magistrates were able to 
assimilate so perfectly African psychology, which is different from 
ours, and to have given us so complete an opinion on Congo colonisa¬ 
tion .... 

M. Massard :—Then the Report is also suspicious ? 

M. Carton de Wiart:— Who says so? I admire, on the contrary, 
the way in which they were able to see clearly through delicate con¬ 
troversial questions, such as the land regime , and taxes in kind, and 
commercial concessions; questions in regard to which many of us— 
myself included—have but a very imperfect idea.f Not only have 
they elucidated these questions, but they have suggested solutions, 
and practical reforms—the creation of areas for the collection of 
produce around native villages, strict application of the law of forty 
hours, the withdrawal from commercial Companies of the right of 
coercion, complete independence of the Judiciary from administrative 
tutelage. The Commission of Inquiry having accomplished its work, 
the State named a Commission of Reforms. But hardly has this 
Commission set about its work, before any of its deliberations have 
transpired, than it is being criticised in a multitude of ways. On the 
26th July, 1904, when the Commission of Inquiry had just been 
named, Le Peuple said:— 

“ We think tfiat if it is desired that the conclusions of this Commission shall 
be uncontradicted, and free from all suspicion, the choice of the Commissioners 
should give every satisfaction to Public Opinion. We reserve to ourselves the 
right of verifying the independence of each of them.” 

One might have understood, gentlemen, a similar attitude towards 
the Commission of Reforms. A few days ago, on the 21st February, 
Mr. Runciman, speaking in the name of Sir Edward Grey in the 
House of Commons, on the discussion of the Address, declared:— 

“ Before taking any decision the British Government must await the results 
of the Commission which is sitting in Brussels to study the question of the 
application of reforms proposed by the Commission of Inquiry.” 


* There has never been a hut-tax in Nigeria. The Inquiry in Nigeria was 
brought about by the alleged ill-treatment of the Brass natives by the Niger 
Company’s agents. The inquiry on the Sierra Leone hut-tax was published in 
full. That tax w\as an impost of 5s. per hut per annum. It was protested, 
against by those who have led the campaign against the Congo, 
t The most sensible sentence in the speech. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 143 

Is it too much to ask you, Belgians, to maintain the same expectant 
attitude as the members of the British Government ? But no ! Such 
an attitude would not have served your designs. A book appears, 
this book which occasioned your interpellation, the work of M. 
Felicien Cattier. 

M. Vandervelde: —It was the Report which brought about our 
interpellation. 

M. Carton de Wiart :—The date of your demand of interpellation, 
and the text of your oration, prove that I am not mistaken. I know 
M. Felicien Cattier. I had the pleasure of being his colleague when 
we were studying with Maitre Pioard, twelve or thirteen years 
ago ... . 

M. Mansard :—Studying universal suffrage ? 

M. Carton de Wiart: —No, preparing a consultus for the Congo 
State on the significance of Article 5 of the Act of Berlin, in order to 
define the State’s right of property, and to distinguish the principle 
of ownership of land, and the principle of commercial liberty. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —That was Cattier in his first stages. 

M. Carton de Wiart: —I must admit that in his recent book M. 
Cattier, although he is a jurist, neglects, somewhat, the juridical side 
of the Congo question, just as he neglects its political side. The 
latter, however, has a powerful interest for us, and our Colonial 
authors should initiate the Belgian Public on problems such as our 
markets on the Upper Nile. M. Cattier merely dwells upon the ques¬ 
tion of exploitation and profits. I wisK to say that I do not doubt 
M. Cattier’s good faith, no more than I doubt his ability. But I am 
less convinced of his special competence, especially of his impartiality. 
So far as I know, he has never seen the Congo, or any other African 
Colony. 

Several Members on the extreme left:—And you! (Laughter on 
tlie extreme left.) 

M. Carton de Wiart: —I have seen some (laughter on the right). 
And I add that, when it is a matter of African colonies, I willingly 
shelter myself behind the testimony of people who know them per¬ 
sonally. 

M. Hymans:— That is right, tell us all about your travels (laugh¬ 
ter on the left). 

M. Carton de Wiart:— If you provoke me to do so (renewed 
iaughter). The Report of the Commission of Inquiry says with 
truth:— 

“ One cannot appreciate thoroughly African matters unless one has seen 
them; one might also say unless one has lived them.” 

M. Bertrand:— The King-Sovereign has not gone to the Congo 
either. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— That is why one must specially take note 
of the opinion of those who have been there. As for the impartiality 
of M. Cattier, it consists sometimes of detaching certain passages 
with an art worthy of Laubardemont himself. More than once he 
has “ solicited ” quotations, according to an expression dear to M. 
Vandervelde. 

M. Vandervelde: —It is an expression of Renan’s 1 

M. Carton de Wiart:— Finally, he commits, in the matter of for¬ 
eign Colonial legislation, errors which M. Rene Vauthier, in La 


144 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Belgique Coloniale et Maritime , and M. Leon Hennebicq, from the 
Tribune of the Young Bar at Brussels, have already pointed out. I 
regret, likewise, that M. Cattier should speak of our missionaries in 
an offensive and displeasing tone, which is really somewhat peculiar 
for a man who places humanitarian considerations in the first place. 
As for our officers, M. Cattier thinks that Africa has been an ele¬ 
ment of weakness and demoralisation for the army; and he only 
appears to have any indulgence at all, and to make an occasional ex¬ 
ception, in favour of such officers, who, upon their return from the 
Congo, have thrown aside their uniforms to take up commercial and 
industrial careers. I may add here that the passage in his book 
which related to a judge at the Tribunal of First Instance of Brus¬ 
sels was conceived in terms which allowed an unhappy insinuation 
against the honour of this magistrate to be suggested. This has 
happily been since removed. 

M. Hymans:— M. Cattier removed it in a letter in the Inde- 

pendance. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— He did well. But it would have been bet¬ 
ter, you will admit, not to have expressed himself in his book in a 
manner to give birth to this insinuation. “A scientific work,” M. Cat- 
tier calls his book in his preface. No, gentlemen, a passionate dia¬ 
tribe. Zola used to say of his literary efforts that they were “ natur¬ 
alism seen through a temperament.” The book of M. Cattier is the 
Report of the Commission of Inquiry seen through the tempera¬ 
ment of an adversary of the'Congo State, and of an adversary of our 
missionaries. This book, which others have called a pamphlet, was 
seized upon with voluptuousness by the Hon. M. Vandervelde. He 
treated it as M. Cattier himself treated the Report of the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry. He selected its most overwhelming passages, and 
presented them to us with his usual ability. The book of M. Cattier 
is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry seen through the tem¬ 
perament of an adversary of the Congo State and of the missions. 
The speech of M. Vandervelde is the book of M. Cattier seen through 
the temperament of a Socialist, an opponent of the monarchy, and an 
opponent of colonial policy. It is a surfeit of charges. 

M. Masson : — Be careful that your appreciation is not reversed 
and applied to yourself. 

M. Carton de Wiart: — You will reply to me, my dear colleague, 
and I do not fear any comparison. 

M. Masson :— I do not intend to discuss the matter. The reply has 
been prepared in advance. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— You are inscribed after me. We shall not, 
therefore, have to wait very long for the pleasure of hearing you. 
I repeat my queries to the interpellator. What was your object? 
This is what we are entitled to ask you. Did you wish to point out 
the abuses of the Congo enterprise? They were known; the Com¬ 
mission had pointed them out with more authority than you could 
do. Did you wish to ask the Congo State to remedy them? The 
Congo State did not wait for your intervention to do that, because 
the Commission for Reforms was constituted before your demand 
of interpellation was deposited. Is your object to burst in an open 
door? Are you, from your point of view (which is not the point of 
view of the plenipotentiaries of Algeciras), an upholder of the policy 
of the open door? (Laughter on the right.) Did you wish to crit- 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 145 


icise the conclusions of the Commission of Reforms? We do not 
know theni yet. At least you might grant to this Commission the 
credit which is given to it elsewhere. In concluding, you asked for a 
new inquiry. What! On the very day after ah inquiry, whose im¬ 
partiality you cannot dispute! By what right, moreover, would the 
Belgian Parliament order an inquiry on the Congo? Then what was 
it you wished ? To re-open sores and poison them ? Call down upon 
the Congo enterprise, and those who direct it, the disapproval of 
your compatriots, or of foreigners? Render the task of good-will 
more difficult, in discrediting such task in advance? Did you not 
fear, by your methods, to spread abroad still more that abominable 
legend, made up of exaggerations and of injustice, which tends to 
look upon the Belgian coloniser as an assassin? Only a few days 
a g°? gentlemen, I saw foreign caricatures representing Belgian offi¬ 
cers mutilating negroes.* Such is the legend which has crossed the 
Atlantic, and if I judge therefrom by interruptions which took place 
on the benches of the extreme left in the course of the speech of M. 
Woeste, there are even some of you who seem to add faith to this 
odious legend. Well, gentlemen, it is necessary that justice should 
be rendered to all, even to those whose ideas one does not approve of. 
It is good, if only for the honour of our name, that all should know 
whot the Commission of Inquiry states on this subject. This is how 
it expresses itself:— 

“As for the mutilations of the boy Impongi and the woman Boali, perpetrated 
by guilty sentinels, their object was theft, and, apart from these two cases, it 
seems therefore that mutilations have never been characterised by tortures 
voluntarily and of set purpose inflicted. However that may be, one point is 
incontestable; never has the white man inflicted or caused to be inflicted, as a 
punishment for shortage in prestations, or for any other cause, such mutilations 
upon living natives. Facts of this kind have been pointed out to us by no 
witnesses, and, notwithstanding all our investigations, we have not been able 
to discover any.”t 

If you desire, gentlemen, and we all desire to condemn real abuses, 
and correct them, let us also condemn unjust accusations and reply 
to them. The abuses appear obvious. M. Beernaert has already 
explained himself thereon, after the Government had done so. They 
are specially concerned with the organisation of the land laws. 
What is the Congo? It is a vast equatorial forest. In the heart 
of this forest the natives have carried out a few plantations, and 
have cleared a few open spaces. They have established their vil¬ 
lages therein, surrounded with a few primitive plantations, and 
with a forest zone into which they penetrate, seeking for the produce 
necessary to their savage life. Is this forest in its entirety the prop¬ 
erty of the natives? No one will seriously maintain such a thing. 
In the whole of the conventional basin of the Congo, whether in 
Uganda, whose legislation must not be confused with that of the 
English zone between Zanzibar and Tanganyika, whether in German 
Equatorial Africa, or in French Congo, we see the same principles 


* Let the warrants for arrest issued by the Judiciary of the Congo State, and 
the judgments of the Boma Courts, be published! 

t The Commission evidently omitted to look up the judgments of the Boma 
Courts in the Mongalla massacres of 1903. The reader is referred to Chapter 
10 of “King Leopold’s Rule in Africa” (Wm. Heinemann, 1904). 


S. Doc. 139, 59-! 


-10 



146 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

admitted as regards vacant land.* * * § In France, since 1904, a legisla¬ 
tion more liberal, less arbitrary, than that of Uganda, settles the 
forest zone, in which the right of private exploitation is recognised 
to the natives, up to a certain quantity of produce.* This is a legis¬ 
lation which might be copied. 

With regard to taxation, gentlemen, what astonishing confusion is 
bred. Undoubtedly I realise the controversy in regard to principle 
on which M. Beernaert has touched. Is force necessary to obtain 
labour ? The hon. Minister, consulting the humanitarian side, re¬ 
plies “ No.” He says that force is not necessary to get the natives 
to work. He does not approve of the labour tax. However, very 
numerous colonials believe the contrary,f and the Commission of In¬ 
quiry agrees with them in saying:— 

“ We have recognised the necessity on the Congo of a labour tax; the amount 
of that tax, fixed at forty hours per month, appears to us equitable. Similarly, 
we do not propose to contest the legitimacy of the principle of force inscribed 
in the law. We think, however, that in the application of this law, agents 
must show the greatest toleration.” 

Certainly, I repeat that our ideas agree much more with the notion 
of a tax in money than of a tax in labour or Kwanga.% 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— No tax-payer, even in Belgium, escapes 
constraint in the matter of taxes. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— I must admit that I fear somewhat 
these comparisons between the Belgian and the Congo tax-paver. 
We are but too tempted to have recourse to such comparisons. 
It leads us to confuse black with white (general laughter). In 
truth, ideas with which we are familiarised are not in the least 
applicable in the Congo. The Congo State was indignantly 
upbraided, I think by M. Lorand, for practising the “ truck system ” 
towards the population of the Upper Congo. Why? Because the 
natives are paid in kind. I should much like to know how they 
could be paid otherwise in a region where the natives have no 
idea of money, where their rudimentary needs have not compelled 
them to exchange amongst themselves, or with others, either round 
pieces of metal or even bank notes (laughter). With regard to 
the labour tax, it pleases the Hon. M. Vandervelde to exaggerate 
the importance which it represents in the general receipts of the 
Congo State. In reality, this tax does not represent more than 
a proportion of six per cent., about the same as that which is levied 
in neighbouring Colonies.§ But it is evident that, if one calculates 
as he does, if one admits in principle that this rubber in the great 
forest, in the collection of which the natives are employed, is their 
property, and if, on these lines, it be considered that they give 
not only their work, but the product itself, one can argue, as has 
been done, that the tax represents 600 francs per native per head. 
It is just as though, in this country, one got a wood-cutter to 
cut down timber in a garden, or a wood, and looked upon the 
wood-cutter as ill-treated to the extent of the difference between 
the salary paid to him and the produce of the sale of the trees 


* This is inaccurate. , 

f Leopoldian “ Colonials,” and cosmopolitan South African financiers. 

t Native bread. 

§ This is ludicrously inaccurate. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIYES. 147 


which he cut down for the owner.* * * § It is also forgotten that it 
is not the same individual who is compelled every month on the 
Congo to carry out the law of forty hours, but that the tax 
weighs upon the community, and only affects individuals in a very 
small proportion.f Gentlemen, it is asserted, and I repeat after 
the Commission of Inquiry, that the very grave abuses which have 
been found to exist, as regards the application of coercion, need 
prompt reform. These abuses have taken place especially in the 
Mongalla and the A.B.I.R., and if the State may be asked to 
apply more strictly the law of forty hours, it seems that, as regards 
the Concessionnaire Companies, the right of using coercion may be 
withdrawn from them. But as to wishing to immediately substitute 
the rubber tax and the porterage tax by a money tax, this is a thesis 
against which I find that all those thoroughly acquainted with coloni¬ 
sation in the African Tropics are opposed.]; In countries, moreover, 
which do not correspond climatically, economically, or juridically with 
the Congo, the attempt to impose a capitation tax, or a hut tax, has 
been met with grave difficulties, and has led to far more abominable 
abuses, such as setting fire to native villages. Here, in this House, 
authoritative views are swept away in a mere speech. No account is 
taken of the organising necessities of a young State, face to face with 
a collossal task. For a little, one would throw it back to the period 
of beginnings, risking to compromise its future. On the contrary, 
the Commissioners looked at the matter more closely. They hesitated 
even to recommend specific solutions. It is only with prudence that 
they suggest recourse to the system of factories, and indeed this sys¬ 
tem, substituting itself for that of exploitation by the State, would no 
doubt have as a consequence the re-establishment of the system of 
pillage, which has existed for long enough in certain African 
regions.§ If one realizes what the Congolese patrimony || would 
lose by a system of pillage; if one also sees what the State would 
lose—that is to say, perhaps, .10,000,000 francs in its revenue—one 
does not see at all what the native would gain. This system existed 
formerly in the Kasai, and everyone recognises that it gave most 
detestable results.^ I have now a word to say on the financial ques- 

* If the garden originally belonged to the wood-cutter, and was seized by 
force by someone else, and if that someone else, calling himself thereupon 
owner, summoned the wood-cutter to work for him at a farcical salary, the 
latter would be looked upon as a victim. Especially if failure to please the 
spoliator involved the retention of the wood-cutter’s wife and children as 
hostages. That is the true comparison. 

f The entire community is punished if the fortnightly tax is not forthcoming. 
The law of forty hours is, of course, a myth. 

t Yes, the tax in money is largely a myth also. 

§ By the system of Factories and the system of pillage, the author means 
commercial relationship! The incredible ignorance of so many of the speakers 
in this debate of African affairs is, perhaps, one of its most notable features. 

|| What is the Congolese “ patrimony ”? 

'i The results were only detestable because, the native receiving a decent profit 
on his transactions with the European, the profits of the said European were 
not large enough to please the Brussels financiers. When the Kasai region was 
open to commerce, its development followed normal and legitimate lines. Since 
1902, when it has been closed to commercial development, and where force has 
taken the place of fair commercial dealing, large sections of the country are in 
course of being exhausted of their rubber, as is the A.B.I.R. Concession, and 
other parts. There have also been successive uprisings, but the Brussels finan¬ 
ciers have made enormous profits, and will continue to do so for a few years; 
then the shares will go to pieces, as the A.B.I.R. shares are going, and another 
part of the Congo will have been ruined for many generations to come. 




148 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES. 

tion, which M. Beernaert treated of. If it appears to me evident 
that the products of the loan should be logically employed for the 
needs and the progress of the colony, I cannot, on the other hand, 
find anything which is monstrous in the existence of the Domaine de 
la Gouronne. This constitutes the civil list of the Sovereign.* * * § 
What! The Sovereign has the right to leave the whole of the State 
to Belgium? You do not deny him that right, I suppose? And yet 
he has not the right to reserve to the Crown a proportion of the rev¬ 
enues of that State. And if he uses that Domaine to develop, accord¬ 
ing to his ideas, the prosperity and the beauty of the mother country, 
I really do not see anything to be indignant thereat. - 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Very good.f 

M. Carton de Wiart : — I notice that the debate, owing to its exten¬ 
sion, has a tendency to take on a more positive character. All the 
better. We see, therefrom, how necessary it is to study more closely 
what concerns our Colony,]; and not to limit ourselves to apply thereto 
ideas of internal political law. It is useful also to suggest practical 
reforms. We shall show thereby our interest in the enterprise. I 
propose, for my part, to suggest certain reforms, which, however 
modest they may be in appearance, might with advantage be adopted. 
What we all lack, and what the Congo State perhaps also lacks, is a 
more thorough knowledge of the native; hence errors and continual 
confusion. I should like to see a monograph of the native according 
to tribes and regions.§ The missionaries have already taken up this 
work, but in a restricted measure, without settled ideas, and especially 
from the religious point of view. This monograph might be made 
out from the economic and social point of view, and why not accord¬ 
ing to the methods of Leplay, which have served so well elsewhere? 
It is necessary also that the magistrates, as the Commission of Inquiry 
admits, should be free from all administrative tutelage. Perhaps, 
alongside the magistrate, it would be well that there should be in each 
district a representative of the natives, an instructor of the natives, a 
specially-chosen functionary, to safeguard the interests and the 
rights of the natives. It is by practical suggestions, which might be 
discussed, and perhaps completed, elsewhere, that we can really show 
that our intention is to improve the enterprise which royal generosity 
has leagued to us, and not to overwhelm it with anticipatory ingrati¬ 
tude. Whatever we may do, as M. Beernaert has recalled, the Congo 
is Belgian; that is the unanimous sentiment of our nation. It is al¬ 
ready Belgian in the eyes of Europe. It is destined to become Belgian 
in reality, and M. Vandervelde, even if he places himself from the 
special and exclusive point of view of the Congo natives, will not dare 
to assert that the natives would gain from a humanitarian point of 
view by being under the protection of a foreign Power, rather than 
under the protection of Belgium (applause on some benches). We 
assume, therefore, whether we like it or not, a veritable solidarity in 


* Who votes this civil list—the Congo natives? 

t No wonder that the Belgian papers, inspired by the Congo State, are already 
hinting that if M. de Smet de Naeyer is driven from power at the next elections, 
he will be chosen by King Leopold as his new Secretary of State. 

t “ Our Colony,” “ a foreign State ”—these contradictions occur whenever the 
whitewashes desire to alter the tune. 

§ It will have to be tackled quickly, or there will be not enough natives left to 
make it worth while. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 149 

this enterprise, and we should do nothing which tends to compromise 
it. Of this enterprise Ave have heard the grandeur; we have been 
shown the transformation of a territory more than 2,000,000 square 
kilometres in extent; the suppression of the slave trade has been 
recalled; cannibalism almost destroyed; alcoholism set aside. A 
Socialist who dares to say AA^hat he thinks, and who does not consider 
himself bound by manifestoes and Congresses; a Socialist who has 
been to the Congo, and he the only one, I think, to do so, the Hon. 
M. Picard, has Avritten, in speaking of the Congo enterprise:— 

“ The whole is undoubtedly good. In all the history of Colonies, there is no 
instance of such advanced results obtained in so short a time, with a personnel 
often chosen haphazard, constantly decimated by sickness.”* 

A very well-known French traveller, M. Edouard Foa, wrote:— 

“ The Congo State is the finest colonising work which exists in Africa.” 

This result, which we owe to our Sovereign, and to the assistance 
which he found amongst our Statesmen in the heart of the Belgian 
Parliament, and also among the modest or glorious workmen of 
that enterprise, will astonish posterity. Of this work we are proud, 
and we must continue to be proud. It has certainly met with, and 
will meet with, many attacks. I would add that it has found upon 
its path abuses and errors which are the lot of human enterprises. 
While these errors must not compromise the enterprise, these attacks 
must not discourage the workmen (applause on the right). Gentle¬ 
men, let the Congo State have the energy to put an end to abuses, 
exposed, thanks to its own initiative.f Let it not hesitate to subor¬ 
dinate, according to the principles which presided over its founda¬ 
tion, exploitation to civilisation, and I make bold to say that it will 
see our sympathy and our pride grow still more (applause on the 
right). 

The Speaker : — M. Yandervelde is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. VANDERVELDE. 

M. Vandervelde: —Gentlemen, I desire to limit my reply; I do 
not wish to take up the time of the House, and that is why I shall 
resist the inclination to reply to the first part of the speech of M. 
Carton de Wiart. The hon. member has spoken to us of many 
things; of the expedition to China, of the merchant marine, of the 
speeches of my friend M. Allard, of our anti-colonial opinions. I 
shall not folloAv him upon that ground, because that ground is not 
the ground of the interpellation (protests on the right). But I may 
be alloAved to say that I regret profoundly that, in a debate which 
touches the rights of humanity, the Hon. Member should merely 
have seen an opportunity for party attack. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— There is no question of that. We are, on 
the contrary, all agreed as to the rights of humanity (voices from 
the left—“ No, no ”). Do you think that on your benches you have 
the monopoly of humanity? 


* This passage was written many years ago, and M. Picard, in a pertinent 
article in Le Peuple, has since disposed of the impression Avhich M. Carton de 
Wiart has attempted to draw from his former views. 

t Thanks, on the contrary, to the overwhelming pressure of British Public 
Opinion. 



150 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Vandervelde :—You have recognised that there are abuses, and 
in fairness you ought to have recognised that these abuses, it is we 
who have pointed them out. 

M. Woeste :—Everyone knew them. 

M. Vandervelde:— How comes it, then, that you waited so long 
to ask that they should be put an end to? Yours is a grave admis¬ 
sion for the Congo State. If it knew of these abuses, it ought to 
have suppressed them. 

M. Bertrand:— If you knew of them, M. Woeste, you are all the 
more guilty. 

M. Vandervelde:— “ Everyone knew them,” says M. Woeste. But 
everyone denied them, and amongst those who denied them, the most 
energetic was M. Woeste. 

M. Woeste :—That is quite inaccurate. 

M. Bertrand :—You denied them only two days ago. 

M. Woeste: —There are abuses in the Congo as there are in Bel¬ 
gium, as there are in all States. 

M. Vandervelde: —It is true, in point of fact, that on several 
occasions M. Woeste said that there were abuses in the Congo as 
there are in Belgium, but that, as in Belgium, these abuses were of 
an individual character. Now what we have always said, what is 
obvious from the Report of the Commission, is that these abuses are 
the consequences of a system, that they have been known for long by 
the Superior Authorities of the Congo State; that the Judiciary 
had not done everything which was necessary to prevent them; and, 
finally, that the State itself profited from the atrocities which it 
condemns to-day. 

M. Woeste: —I should like to see you at it (laughter and inter¬ 
ruptions on the extreme left). 

M. Pirnez : —And I also. 

M. Bertrand :—Supposing you went out yourself! 

M. Caelnwaert: —Why don’t you go out yourself? 

M. Hymans:— This is deportation! (Laughter on the left.) 

M. Vandervelde:— Does the interruption of M. Woeste signify 
that he desires to send the Socialists to the Congo? (Laughter on 
the left and on the extreme left.) 

M. Woeste :—I mean that if you were face to face with local diffi¬ 
culties, you would not speak as you do here, from your place in 
Parliament. 

M. Allard:— But M. Vandervelde would not commit crimes! 

M. Jan son :—No one would desire to enrich himself by the means 
which have been employed in the Congo. 

M. Vandervelde:— It has been to bring millions to the share¬ 
holders of the A.B.I.R., to furnish the King with means of domina¬ 
tion and corruption, that the moral liabilities which you share to-day 
have been assumed (applause on the extreme left). 

M. Woeste :—That is a phrase and nothing more. 

M. Allard:— The crimes and incendiarism are facts. 

M. J anson :—It is you who constantly indulge in phrases. 

M. Bertrand :—You are a merchant of phrases. 

M. Vandervelde:— In beginning my speech, I said I intended to 
limit my reply, but the excitable interruptions of the Hon. M. Woeste 
will compel me to lengthen it. 

M. Woeste :—Oh ! I am quite at my ease. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 151 

M. Vandervelde:— What I wished to do first of all was to reply 
to the arguments successively brought forward by the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both 
objected that my interpellation lacked juridical basis, and in all 
loyalty I am compelled to recognise that it is extremely difficult to 
formulate in the Belgian House a demand for an interpellation on 
anything which pertains to Congo questions. It is undeniable, in¬ 
deed, that Belgium has no direct and no normal means of intervening 
in the affairs of the Congo State, but whose fault is it, if not the fault 
of those who cut the links which existed up to 1901 between Belgium 
and the Congo State? When M. Beernaert got the Belgian Parlia¬ 
ment to vote the Convention of 1890, by which Belgium lent twenty- 
five millions to the Congo State, he was careful to reserve our right 
of control, and our right of demanding information. If M. Beer- 
naert’s work had not been destroyed by M. de Smet de Naeyer, our 
position in interpellating would have been infinitely easier. We 
should be entitled, on the strength of the Convention of 1890, to de¬ 
mand information. AVe could claim precise data on the economic 
and financial situation of the Congo State, and, instead of finding 
itself in the redoubtable unknown, the House would be in a position 
to be completely informed. To-day, on the contrary, we are in a 
position whose absurdity and equivocation has been many times 
poihted out. When we ask for information, we are told the Congo 
State is a foreign State; when we denounce abuses, we are told the 
Congo is a Belgian enterprise. Well, gentlemen, this situation is 
untenable, and I am not the only one to think so, and to say so, 
because I would recall to my colleagues on the right what the Hon. 
M. de Lantsheere (Catholic) said on the 16th August, 1901, at the 
time when the rejected law, by which Belgium renounced all right of 
control, was being discussed:— 

“ The new position which has been created for us, and which totally excludes 
Belgium from any intervention in Congo affairs, is going to place us in an 
untenable situation—to undergo all liabilities, without our having the least 
I>ower, or the least liberty of action. No one in the world has ever consented 
to accept a responsibility which excludes a right of action, and of freedom. It 
would be the responsibility for the acts of others, from our Belgian point of 
view; it would remain our liability from the foreign point of view.” 

Gentlemen, these words of M. de Lantsheere are invested to-day 
with prophetic value. AYe find, indeed, that we are made responsible 
for the acts of the Congo State, and that, on the other hand, in Bel¬ 
gium we are told that we are powerless to do anything whatever to 
put an end to abuses which the whole world admits. Nevertheless, 
if we have no direct means of intervening in Congo affairs, we have 
the means of action, or, as I said the other day, of pressure upon the 
Congo State. It is for that reason that I drew up as I did my inter¬ 
pellation, by founding it first of all on Article 6 of the Act of Berlin, 
secondly on lending officers and officials, paid by Belgium, to the 
Congo State, finally on the inconveniences which accrue to Belgium 
from the regime of the personal union with the Congo State. First 
of all, we based ourselves upon Article 6 of the Act of Berlin, whose 
text you know:— 

“All Powers exercising right of sovereignty or influence in the said terri¬ 
tories, shall undertake to watch over the preservation of the native peoples, and 
the amelioration of their moral and material conditions of existence, and help 
in suppressing slavery, and especially the slave trade.” 


152 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

It was on the strength of that Article that in 1903 the .House of 
Commons requested the British Government to suggest the coming 
together of a new International Conference. Now what I maintain 
to-day is that, in view r of the abuses which are admitted by the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry, and in the event of these abuses not being sup¬ 
pressed by the Congo State, Belgium should give her adhesion to an 
International Conference with the object of putting an end to the system 
of exploitation of the natives, which circumscribes their liberty and their 
property, to the extinction of their race. When we say that, the Minis¬ 
ter for Foreign Affairs replies to us: “ You refuse to see the good 
sides of the Congo enterprise; the abuses which you point out, and 
which we admit with you, are individual abuses; moreover, they have 
almost entirely disappeared. And, finally, the system of coercion 
which exists in the Congo is at once necessary and beneficial.” I 
reply immediately, and very briefly, to these divers arguments. 

We are told, “ You refuse to recognise the good sides of the Congo 
enterprise.” Gentlemen, I appeal to your memory. At the begin¬ 
ning of my interpellation, I myself admitted that great things had 
been accomplished in the Congo, and I thought it was only right to 
quote that portion of the Report in which is shown all that Belgian 
energy and perseverance has realised in Tropical Africa. But we are 
told, “ You insist with excessive severity on individual abuses.” I 
reply that these abuses are not individual, because there is a difference 
between crimes committed individually by men who have no author¬ 
ity, and crimes which are committed, tolerated, desired, ordered even, 
by men who, on the contrary, exercise the highest authority in the 
country. Now the events which have taken place in the Congo in¬ 
volve the responsibility of officers, of Station-Chiefs, of District Com¬ 
missioners, and all those who are at the head of the State. We are 
again told that these abuses existed formerly; they no longer exist,* 
and in his speech M. de Smet de Naeyer did not hesitate to assert, as 
a proof that these abuses no longer existed, the fact that Baron Wahis, 
Governor-General of the Congo, in the course of his inspection, met 
two Protestant missionaries, who told him that everything was going 
on well in the Mongalla Basin ! To the statements of these two Prot¬ 
estant missionaries, whose names have not been given to us, I replied 
in advance by invoking the testimony of fifty-two missionaries, met 
together at Kinchassa, Stanleypool, in January, 1906, who declare 
that the condition of affairs has hardly improved since the visit of the 
* Commission of Inquiry. Now, gentlemen, amongst these mission¬ 
aries is to be found Mr. George Grenfell, who was formerly decorated 
by the Sovereign of the Congo State, who presided over the Commis¬ 
sion for the Protection of the Natives, who thought for a long time 
that the other missionaries exaggerated, but who was compelled to 
admit the facts when he one day himself assisted at a scene of massa¬ 
cre, over which an Italian officer and a non-commissioned Belgian 
officer presided.]- Finally, it is said that it is possible to cause abuses 
to disappear without touching the system. It is said that coercion 
is necessary; that coercion is beneficial; and to prove it, the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer tells us that some Companies of the Kasai 


* That has been repeated for ten years by the Congo State, 
f I do not think M. Grentell was present at this scene. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 153 

asked to have the same police rights as Companies in the A.B.I.R. or 
the Mongalla. I certainly think that, so far as the Companies are 
concerned, who demand large quantities of rubber without paying its 
counter-value, coercion is necessary. But what it is requisite to ascer¬ 
tain is whether coercion is of benefit to the natives, and if it is indis¬ 
pensable. Now, that it is disastrous for the natives is admitted by 
the abuses which have taken place; and that it is not necessary is 
shown by the Resolution which I recalled the other day, unanimously 
voted by the Congress of Colonial Sociology of 1900, a Resolution 
which contends that forced labour must necessarily bring about 
•abuses, and is not in the least needed in order to procure labour. 
Thus very little is left of anything which has been replied to us. 
What remains, what we know, are the abuses themselves. This 
interpellation has given men belonging to all parts of the House the 
opportunity of declaring that these abuses are abominable, and that 
the}^ must be made to disappear. 

I now come to the second part of my interpellation. I said that, 
in view of the admitted abuses in the Congo, the Belgian State has 
the right either to decline to place its officials any longer at the dis¬ 
posal of the Congo State, or to subordinate such authority to the real¬ 
isation of reforms. M. Woeste replied, “ These officials are on leave.” 
This is materially inaccurate, and after having reflected over his 
contention, the Hon. Member will certainly not maintain it, for 
last year it was shown, in the course of a discussion on the war esti¬ 
mates, that a certain number of officers, professedly detached from 
the Institute of Military Cartography, were, in point of fact, em¬ 
ployed by the Congo State. We were then told that these officers 
were rendering service to the country, and were fulfilling a scientific 
and humanitarian mission, and that, far from blaming the Belgian 
Government, we ought to praise it. I do not wish to generalise. 
I render homage to the explorers, to the scientists, to those who ac¬ 
complished or are accomplishing civilising work; but I will add to 
this that it is no longer possible to deny that large numbers of officers 
sent to the Congo are there transformed into commercial agents, and 
have there acted in a manner which is of a kind to cause the greatest 
harm to the good repute of the Belgian Army. Yesterday, again, 
M. Lorand read to us an almost inconceivable letter, signed by a 
man who has been made a hero of in the struggle against the slave 
trade, Commandant .Jacques. Having been apprised that the na¬ 
tives employed in the collection of rubber had cut the vines, instead 
of tapping "them, this officer wrote to an official in charge of a sta¬ 
tion : “Warn these people if they cut another vine I will exterminate 
them to the last man.” Now, Commandant Jacques, who wrote this 
letter, spoke of the natives of Inoryo—that is to say, of a village in 
the Domaine de la Gouronne. These natives, whom it was desired to 
exterminate, because they cut the vines, were the unfortunate natives 
who were working to furnish the millions which have served in 
the construction of the monumental arcade, and to the improvement 
of the Laeken Palace! This letter of Commandant Jacques is not, 
moreover, an exceptional one, or an individual abuse, as M. Woeste 
contends. It only needs to be compared with other documents of 
the same kind, and notably of that monstrous letter addressed to 
the officials in charge of the stations on the Rubi-Welle, by the Gen¬ 
eral Commissioner of the Welle district, Commandant Verstraeten 


154 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIYES. 

“ I have the honour to inform you that from the 1st January, 1899, you 
must manage to supply 4,000 kilos, of rubber per month. To that effect 
I give you carte blanche. You have two months in which to work your 
people. Employ gentleness at first, and if they persist in resisting the 
demands of the State, employ force of arms” (outcry). 

Must other examples be given? I quoted the other day a circular, 
by which the Congo State offered bonuses to officers who recruited 
natives for the Force Publique , and the Hon. M. Woeste told me, 
this is a system which is analogous to the bonuses given to the recruit¬ 
ing of volunteers in Belgium. To reply to that argument, and to 
show how, at the beginning, these men of the Force Publique were 
obtained, it is sufficient to read another letter, also signed by an officer 
of the Belgian Army, Capt. Commandant Sarrasin:— 

“ Chief Ngulu, of Wangata, is sent into the Maringa to buy slaves for 
me.” (Renewed outcry.) “Ask the Agents of the A. B. I. It. to be good 
enough to inform me of the ill-deeds which he may commit en route.” 
Well, gentlemen, I ask you whether we should lend officers to the 
Congo State to “ work the people,” to “ buy slaves ” for the Force 
Publique , to make rubber, by threatening the natives to exterminate 
them to the last man. I say that to authorise officers to carry out 
such work as this, is not to increase the prestige of the Belgian 
Army, but to dishonour it (applause on the Socialist benches). 

And now, gentlemen, I come to the third point. I said that the 
personal union between Belgium and the Congo State had many 
political and financial inconveniences for our country. Political in¬ 
conveniences. Do you think that if the Congo State, if the Congolese 
absolutism, had not been organised as it has been organised for the 
last twenty years, Belgian policy would be to-day what it is? Do 
you think that the military projects * would have been passed? Do 
you not think that Congolese absolutism reacts upon Belgian con¬ 
stitutionalism? Do you want a proof of it? You will find it in 
the speech of M. Woeste himself, who two days ago made a very 
eloquent apologia of the personal power . . . 

M. Masson :—Of absolutism. 

M. Vandervelde:— . . . Who quoted the words of M. Emile 

Augier, “ Despotism fertilises chaos.” There are a certain number 
of despotic States in Europe; there is Russia, there is Turkey, and 
there is the Congo State, whose head-quarters are in Brussels. Now 
I maintain that in these three countries, where absolutism reigns, 
personal power has not fertilised chaos, but has engendered chaos. 
It has engendered it, not only in the political world, but in the finan¬ 
cial world. With regard to the latter, I shall not quote again from 
the book of M. Cattier, but I intend to reply briefly to the denial of 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to the latter, M. Cat- 
tier has exaggerated in the most formidable proportions:— 

“ It is not true that the Domaine dc la Couronne possesses real estate at 
Ostend and at Brussels... It is not true that the Domaine de la Couronne has 
made 70 millions of francs in ten years; it has made barely 18 millions. It 
is not true that the Congo State has expended more than 100 millions outside 
that country; it has spent barely 50.” 

Well, gentlemen, let us examine separately these three statements. 
First of all, the Minister said that the Domaine de la Couronne has 


* E. g., the fortification of Antwerp. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 155 


only bought real estate in the arrondissement of Ostend and Brus¬ 
sels, and that consequently M. Cattier spoke frivolously when he said 
that real estate had been secured by the Domaine de la Gouronne in 
other arrondissements. Now, gentlemen, I have here before me an 
extract issued by one of the subordinates of the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer .... 

M. Bertrand: —The Minister would do well to listen. 

M. Vandervelde: — ... by the Registrar of Mortgages of 
Bruges, which establishes in an indisputable manner that the Do¬ 
maine de la Gouronne has bought real estate elsewhere than in the 
arrondissements of Ostend and Brussels. It is concerned with a 
sale made by Leopold II., King of the Belgians, to the Domaine de 
la Gouronne , for a sum of more than 5,000,000 francs. In passing, I 
ask the Minister for Justice what is the Domaine de la Gouronnef 
What is this u moral personality ” ? How has it been tolerated that 
officers of the Government should sign deeds by which an obviously 
illegal mortmain has been constituted? But I return to the extract 
which I have before me. It shows that, apart from the real estate 
purchased by the Domaine de la Gouronne in the arrondissements of 
Brussels and Ostend, there is other real estate situate in the Com¬ 
mune of Middelkerke, which belongs, I believe, to the arrondissement 
of Fumes. 

M. Buyl: —To the administrative arrondissement of Ostend. 

M. Vandervelde: —In any case, other real estate is situate in the 
Communes of Tervueren and Wesembeke, in the arrondissement of 
Louvain. There is the domain d’Ardennes, that of Ciergnon, and 
that of Villers-sur-Lesse, situate in the Provinces of Namur and 
Luxemburg. I am obliged, therefore, to note that the lion. Minister,, 
when he affirmed that the real estate belonging to the Domaine de la 
Gouronne was to be found exclusively in Brussels and Ostend, laid 
himself open to be contradicted by his own officials * (interruption on 
the left). I now turn to the question of the Domain de la Gouronne . 
This is what the Hon. Minister said:— 

“According to M. Cattier, the rubber zone has an area of 1,026,875 square 
kilometres. Now the area of the zone where rubber is exploited covers 2,015,000 
square kilometres, because it should be noted that the rubber zone must not be 
confounded with the forest zone, which M. Cattier seems to have taken as the 
basis. Root rubber, which grows in the plains of numerous districts, furnishes 
a latex equal in value to the finest vines, although mixed with impurities which 
have not been entirely eliminated hitherto, and which cause it to lose a portion 
of its value. Two other parts of the rule of three adopted by M. Cattier to 
evaluate the Domaine de la Gouronne are equally erroneous. The area of this 
Domaine is not 289,000 kilometres square, but 252,300 kilometres square, and 
the price of 7,000 francs, which he adopts as the mean profit per ton from 1896 
to 1905, is too high by 2,500 to 3,000 francs. On the other hand, it is to be 
noted that the Domaine de la Gouronne has only been exploited, as such, since 
1900. In rectifying, as I have done, and still following the method of M. Cat- 
tier, we arrive at a figure of 18 millions, instead of 70 millions.” 

M. de Smet de Naeyer affirms, therefore, that M. Cattier was mis¬ 
taken in estimating the extent of the rubber area of the Congo. 


* M. Cattier published complete lists of the purchase of real estate in the 
arrondissements of Brussels and Ostend. The total value of these purchases 
amounted to over 18,000,000 francs. These lists having been published, no 
attempt, of course, was made by the Belgian Premier to deny them. In his 
book M. Cattier explained that, owing to the heavy cost entailed in getting 
information, he could not pursue his inquiry into the other arrondissements 
of the country. 



156 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPBESENTATIVES. 

According to him, this area covers 2,015,000 kilometres square. Now 
do you know what the total area of the Congo is, according to the 
Almanack de Gothaf It is 2,380,000 kilometres square, from which 
must be deducted the lakes, rivers, and numerous swampy districts, 
which reduces to less than 2,000,000 of square kilometres the total 
area of the exploitable land. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
asserts that the rubber area itself is more than 2,000,000 kilometres 
square! In point of fact, only a portion, about half the territory, 
is particularly rich in rubber vines, and at the present time the 
whole of this portion is not even exploited. Moreover, it should be 
noted that if a little rubber is obtainable outside the rubber area 
properly so-called, the portion of which the Domaine de la Couronne 
is composed, includes the finest forests on the Congo, and has a 
higher output than the mean output of the forest zone. In the 
second place, the Minister tells us that the price of 7,000 francs 
arrived at as the average price per ton, is too high by 2,500 to 
3,000 francs per ton at least. I have no time to reply fully to this 
gratuitous assertion. I content myself with saying that the evalua¬ 
tion of M. Cattier was made by a specialist, who recognised that the 
rubber cost the State about 2,168 francs per ton, which leaves a 
profit of about 2,740 francs per ton. On the other hand, contrary 
to the statement of the Minister, the exploitation of the Domaine de 
la Couronne began before 1900, and, after inquiry, I find that the 
area of the Domaine de la Couronne is duly 289,000 kilometres square, 
and not 250,000 kilometres square. But you will tell me, “ these are 
statements and estimates which we cannot verify.” This is obvious 
in itself, but what then was the speech of the Minister, except a 
series of assertions and estimates, some of which are obviously inac¬ 
curate, and others of which totally lack proof? There was, how¬ 
ever, a very easy method by which he could have confounded M. Cat- 
tier, and have proved to us that the Domaine de la Couronne has not 
brought in 70,000,000 francs profit in ten years. That method would 
have consisted in giving us the real figures of the profits. Until he 
does do so, we shall continue to believe that the evaluations of 
M. Cattier approximate to the truth, and we are all the more inclined 
to believe it, in view of the admission of the interested parties them¬ 
selves that the Colonial museum at Tervueren will cost 30 millions, 
and that the embellishment of the Palace at Laeken will absorb an 
equal sum, without speaking of the monumental arcade, and real 
estate in Brussels and Ostend, and the properties on the Riviera. 

Finally, gentlemen, I arrived at the third point mentioned by the 
Hon. Minister—•“ M. Cattier also exaggerated in considerable pro¬ 
portions the yield of the loan on the lottery system. Instead of fifty 
millions, this loan has only brought in seven or eight millions!” At 
first sight it hardly seems likely that 150 millions have been borrowed 
in order to obtain so meagre a result. Moreover, the Minister affirms 
nothing—he takes good care not to do so—but contents himself with 
an estimate, quoting a letter of Baron Van Eetvelde, dating from 
1895! Once more was it easy—the Minister’s relations with the 
Congo State are sufficiently close—it was easy, I say, to inform us 
in a precise manner, and to oppose to the figure of M. Cattier the 
true figure, the official figure; for let us not forget that M. Cattier 
has never said that his figures were anything more than a mere esti- 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 157 

mate, and that the lack of details furnished by the financial publi¬ 
cations of the Congo State made this estimate extremely difficult. 
But let us admit for a moment, as a pure hypothesis, that the figures 
quoted by the Minister are accurate. If so, the sums received by the 
Congo State from the issue of bonds are reduced to 65,700,000 francs. 
To this must be added the 5,000,000 lent by Belgium in 1890, and the 
5,287,000 issued to reimburse M. de Browne de Tiege, which makes 
a total of 75,987,000 francs. Now it seems to be admitted that the 
deficit of the Congo Budget * has only amounted to 27 million francs. 
Therefore, according to this reckoning, not 100 millions, as M. Cattier 
says, but about 50 millions, or, more accurately, 48,987,000 francs 
have been employed for other objects than the development of the 
Colony. Of these two statements, which is the true one? Is M. 
Cattier or is the Chancellor of the Exchequer accurate? Have 50- 
million francs been borrowed to expend elsewhere than in the Colony, 
or have 100 millions been borrowed with this object? I cannot assert 
one way or another; none of us can do so; but what is beyond dis¬ 
pute is that, under the present conditions, it is impossible for us to 
form an idea, having any precision, on the financial state of the 
Congo. Yet this question is one of capital importance, because the 
debt of the Congo State steadily increases, and at the present moment 
can be estimated as follows:—First of all, according to the figures 
furnished by the Government, 67,432,000 francs (nominal value of 
the bonds issued), plus 31,804,615 francs lent by Belgium, or a total 
of 99,236,615 francs. It would seem, therefore, according to the 
declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the total debt 
of the Congo State amounts at the present moment to very nearly 
100 million francs. Now if Belgium takes over the Congo some 
day, she will have to reimburse these 100 million francs, and this 
public debt has no other compensating advantage than the portfolio 
of the State, which is composed for the greater part of shares in the 
A.B.I.R., and in the Mongalla Concessionnaire Companies, which 
will lose nearly all their value from the very day that the rubber 
system is abolished. This is what I had to establish, and now what 
must be the conclusions of this debate? I signed the Resolution 
of M. Masson and his friends, because I think it is the maximum 
which we can obtain at this moment, and that it is profoundly desir¬ 
able that we should unite in a complete disapproval of the abuses 
which everyone has condemned. I suggested, moreover, the creation 
of a Commission of Inquiry in regard to the financial and other 
consequences which might result for Belgium if she takes over the 
Congo. We have been told that this Commission could not act, 
because it would be without precedent that an inquiry should be 
made into a foreign State. It would seem that that is left to Vice- 
Consuls, appertaining to the Department of Foreign Affairs, who 
make secret inquiries in British Colonies. 

M. de Favereau: —There is no question of secret inquiry, because 
the results were published in documents communicated to the House. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— In the “ Recueil Consulaire.” 

M. Vandervelde:— Yes, some of the results were published, but 
others were utilised by the Congo State to direct its criticisms against 

* E. g., the official figure. There has, of course, been no real deficit at all, 
but a large surplus, scandalously concealed from the world. 



158 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

British Colonies.* Moreover, I shall not labour the point, be¬ 
cause .... 

M. de Favereau: —You are well advised. 

M. Vandervelde :— . . . Because the important matter is that 

we should be enlightened on the financial and economic state of the 
Congo before pronouncing on a possible annexation. I am told it 
is impossible to make an inquiry in the territory of a foreign State, 
without the consent of the latter. I reply that this consent could, 
apparently, be obtained by the Belgian Government. I reply further 
that this Commission of Inquiry could take place in Belgium, and 
could listen to Belgians who would give, under oath, data on the 
position, which they know, of the Congo State. I add that, in 
making this proposal, I have only repeated a suggestion which was 
made some time ago by my hon. colleague and friend, M. Janson. 
At that period, this is what M. Beernaert replied:— 

“ It has often been asserted that the affairs of the Congo territory were too 
little known, and that they were surrounded by I do not know what mystery. 
Well, henceforth, all the desirable details, we shall have them, the development 
of the occupation of the country, the number of commercial agents, financial 
burdens—we shall know all. The Hon. M. Janson demanded some time ago, 
moved by a friendly thought for this great enterprise, that the Belgian Govern¬ 
ment should institute an inquiry. He would have liked to send Commissioners 
to the Congo, and to have got them to report. Instead of a mission confided 
to a few men for a few months, we will have a permanent inquiry, which will 
last ten years. You will be informed of all the facts and all the figures cal¬ 
culated to enlighten Public Opinion.” 

Well, gentlemen, all that was true in 1890, at the time when M. 
Beernaert was speaking, and it is to his credit that, when he caused 
the Convention of 1890 to be voted, he safe-guarded the rights of 
Belgium. But this does not hold good to-day. We can no longer 
obtain information. We do not know the financial condition of 
the Congo State. The permanent inquiry begun in 1890 has ceased, 
and if to-morrow we had to come to a decision on the eventual an¬ 
nexation of the Congo, we should have no certain data; we should 
not be able to accept even the succession of the King after making 
the regulation inventory. This is what M. Masson understood, and 
this is the reason for which he has presented a Resolution, which I 
was happy to sign with him. This Resolution demands information 
on the consequences of eventual annexation, and reserves, in the most 
formal manner, the question of knowing if the Congo shall, or shall 
not, be annexed. The Resolution can therefore be voted by all 
those who wish to see clearly, whatever may be their opinion on 
Colonial policy. One word, in closing, on the Resolution presented 
by M. Beernaert. This Resolution contains three parts. One of 
them is identical with the closing part of our Resolution, and 
demands an immediate discussion of the projected law relating to 
the system to be established in our future colonial possessions. 
M. Carton de Wiart asked me a little while ago if I was converted 
to annexation, as I demanded an immediate discussion of the pro¬ 
jected law. Not the least in the world .... 

M. Carton de Wiart: —I asked you if you were or were not 
systematically hostile to annexation. 


* In “ La Verite sur le Congo. 1 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 159 


M. Vandervelde:— . . . But before giving an opinion on 

annexation, it is essential that we should know if it is intended to 
maintain in the Congo the regime of absolutism which exists to-day, 
or if it is proposed to give to natives and to Belgians the guarantees 
of a Parliamentary control. The first portion of the Resolution of 
M. Beernaert contains a very opportune reference to the principles 
of the Act of Berlin, relating to the protection of the natives, and 
to the maintenance of commercial freedom. I suggest to M. Masson 
to add to our Resolution this sentence of the Resolution of M. 
Beernaert:— 

“ Seeing that Belgium is imbued with the principles which presided at the 
foundation of the Congo State, and which inspired the Act of Berlin.” 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: — . . . “And renders homage to all 

those who have devoted themselves to this civilising work.” 

M. Vandervelde: —Allow me, it is necessary that we should be 
explicit on that point, and that we should know to whom homage is 
rendered. I approve of all those who with disinterestedness, for 
love of science, penetrated with an ideal which is not mine, have 
gone to the Congo, and have often lost their lives there, but I 
decline to include in that approval, by means of an equivocation, 
those who have never been to the Congo, but who have directed 
from here the frightful financial machine which has carried de¬ 
moralisation and death amongst the populations of equatorial Africa 
(applause on the extreme left). 

M. Helleputte: —There is no possible equivocation. I demand 
to be heard. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: — : The Hon. M. Vandervelde intends to 
exclude from his approval the founder of the enterprise itself. 

M. Vandervelde:— In the Resolution of M. Beernaert there is 
another portion, which for my part I consider quite inacceptable. 
It is that in which he affirms his confidence in the Commission of 
Reforms, and in the results which will be given to its Resolutions. 
I said already, in my first speech, and I will not repeat it now at 
length, that it is impossible for me to have the confidence which 
M. Beernaert seems to have in the work of the Commission of 
Reforms. First of all, because of the way in which it is composed, 
for it includes a majority of officials, and behind these officials we 
find an administrator of the A.B.I.R. modestly concealing himself! 
Secondly, and especially, because those of the Members of the Commis¬ 
sion in whom I should be inclined to have full and entire confidence, such, 
for instance, as the President of the Commission of Enquiry, admit in 
principle the system of Coercion and of Forced Labour. Now, and I can 
invoke on this point the opinion of the Colonial Congress to which I 
referred a moment ago, I maintain that coercion is not necessary; 
that a system of forced labour involves disastrous consequences; 
and that, as long as it has not disappeared, some improvements may 
be brought about, some degrees of native suffering may be alleviated, 
but the evil will not have been destroyed in its root (applause on 
the extreme left). It is for these reasons, gentlemen, that if I vote 
the first and latter portions of the Resolution of M. Beernaert, I 
cannot associate myself with the confidence which he displays in the 
accomplishment of serious reforms by the Congo State. On the 
other hand, I will willingly vote the Resolution presented by M. 


160 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 

Coifs, which is the logical result of the arguments which I have used 
here. 

M. Hymans: —Then you will vote all the Resolutions? (Laugh¬ 
ter.) 

M. Vandervelde :—Yes, so long as in these Resolutions there 
shall be a thought of reproving the abuses which I condemn . . . 

M. Lorand Just so. 

M. Vandervelde :— . . so long as they announce measures cal¬ 

culated to make these abuses disappear, I am ready to vote them, 
because in this question I am not concerned with party politics, but 
only with humanitarian considerations (applause on the Socialist 
benches). That is why I can afford to set aside the argument which 
has been employed, first by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, then by 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then by M. Carton de Wiart, 
which consists in saying that we are lacking in patriotism, because 
we attack the abuses of the Congolese administration. I love, and 
and I love as much as you, the country to which I belong, and it is 
precisely on that account that I feel a painful humiliation each time 
that the crimes and atrocities committed in Africa by Belgians in 
the service of the Congo State are drawn attention to. How should 
I not feel such a sentiment of humiliation, when I read the debates 
in the House of Commons on Congo affairs; when I see the Italian 
Government forbidding its officers, even on leave, from taking serv¬ 
ice in the Congo State; when I learn that the dying words of 
De Brazza, pronounced at Dakar, have been, u The French Congo 
must not become a second Mongalla ” ? I experienced the same feel¬ 
ing when I saw, a few days ago, the article on Colonial Adminis¬ 
tration by Professor Reinsch, who says that the regime of exploita¬ 
tion and waste of natural riches actually prevailing on the Congo is 
analogous only with what existed formerly in the first Spanish 
Colonies. The consequence of all this is that other countries are 
giving us a reputation which I regard as undeserved. Abroad we are 
thought to be an energetic, enterprising people, but fond of gain, 
unscrupulous, hesitating before no cruelty to satisfy our thirst for 
profit. Well, gentlemen, I say that this reputation, which we are 
earning through the abuses of the Congo administration, is unjust. 

M. Carton de Wiart:— The echo of your speeches has something 
to do also with this unfortunate legend. 

M. Vandervelde:— The immense majority of the Belgians are 
industrious and peaceful workers. They have not benefited by the 
profits obtained thanks to the horrors of the Congo. What they 
may have been reproached with, hitherto, has been a sort of moral 
apathy, of indifference for crimes committed too far from us. But 
there is still time to wash ourselves of this stigma. There is time 
to say that we are not concerned in these crimes, and that we are 
unanimous in condemning them, and if we say that, what will 
remain of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He 
has spoken to us of money, of profits, of presents made to Belgium. 
I tell him that this money, these profits, these presents are shameful 
things, because they are the result of the exploitation of a whole people, 
and I hope that in this debate, where common feelings have united many 
of us, the last word will remain with humanity. (Loud applause on 
the extreme left.) 

The Speaker:— M. Masson is in command of the House. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 161 


SPEECH BY M. MASSON. 

M. Masson : —rA few friends and myself thought that it was indis¬ 
pensable to draw a conclusion from this debate; not to allow this 
interpellation to end in smoke, as those which have preceded it. Me 
thought it was necessary that the House, inspired by facts now 
known, should endeavour to draft a Resolution dictated by the inter¬ 
ests of the country. Our Resolution does not differ very notably 
from that of M. Beernaert. We ask the same as he does, but we ask 
more than he does. We ask, as he does, that we should deliberate as 
soon as possible on the proposed law for the organisation of Colonial 
possessions; but we desire also that the Government should demand 
the communication of all documents calculated to enlighten Belgium 
on the condition of the Congo State. On the first point, I have 
little left to say; the Hon. M. Beernaert has said, better than I 
could say, everything that was necessary. I shall deal especially 
with the second point. First of all, I wish to explain my state of 
mind. I am not a Congophobe, and, on the other hand, I have never 
been concerned in colonial affairs. I am in the same position as the 
majority of Belgians, who have followed with interest, and, I add, 
with sympathy, this assuredly extraordinary Colonial enterprise. I 
have approved it. I recognise, like the majority of our citizens, that 
great things have been done therein, and that the initiator of this 
Colony has been inspired by interests of a superior order, favour¬ 
able to civilisation, and favourable to the prosperity of Belgium. 
The letter which he wrote to M. Beernaert, enclosing his will and 
testament, proves this. I speak, therefore, with absolute independ¬ 
ence, without partiality, and happy at last to be able to emerge from 
the state of perplexity in which, together with many of my fellow 
citizens, I have been placed, between the accused and the accuser. 
Until last year, it was impossible for us to form an opinion on the 
value of the attacks directed against the Congo State, to measure 
the truth or the injustice of them. The acts of the officials of the 
State, or its agents, remain enveloped in a sort of mystery; we do 
not know the facts, because it pleases the Congo State to keep its 
affairs secret, and not to place itself in the light of publicity. The 
accusers brought forward facts, whose precision was calculated to 
move us and convince us. The accused and his friends denied the 
charges, and brought counter accusations of suspicious motives. It 
was impossible to come to a conclusion, and to sort out elements of 
certainty between these various statements. This situation has-come 
to an end. The veil has been torn aside. Since the publication of 
the Report of the Commission of Inquiry light has been made, and 
I do not hesitate to say that it is as complete as it was possible to 
make it. I do not share the views of my hon. friend, M. Lorand, 
on the manner in which the Commission has accomplished its duty. 
He would have liked a speech £or the prosecution. We have hnd, 
and I think it was better, a fair and sound judgment; not only did 
the Commission show impartiality, but it plainly saw the things 
which it was necessary to see. It investigated facts from a high 
standpoint, in their entirety, but also closely in their details. Thanks 
to the Report, we know now how the Congo is organised; how its 
power is employed; to what abuses the system has given birth. Its 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-11 


162 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

investigations were carried into all districts whence complaints and 
recriminations have proceeded.* Nothing, or almost nothing, es¬ 
caped its penetrating investigation. We must recognise this, and 
we must have the courage to say so. I have been expecting such 
an admission from the Government. Grave errors have been com¬ 
mitted on the Congo. There has not only been violence and indi¬ 
vidual excesses, but faults in the organisation of certain funda¬ 
mental institutions; in the land regime; in the establishment of 
taxation, and its methods of enforcement; in the formation of the 
police or Force Publique. The Administration has set aside, on these 
various points, the principles of justice and humanity, and its short¬ 
comings have brought about the worst excesses, or facilitated the 
violent acts of which some of its agents are accused. This must be 
loyally recognised, however great the authority one is confronted 
by (applause on various benches on the left and extreme left). When 
I communicated to my friends my desire to draw a conclusion from 
this debate, and when I expressed the opinion that it was necessary 
to obtain henceforth thorough information on the condition of af¬ 
fairs in the Congo, and that to this end the communication of docu¬ 
ments calculated to throw light on the financial situation and the 
administration was indispensable, I was told that we were not en¬ 
titled to make such demands, because, if the Convention of 1890 
allowed us to do so, that of 1901 had withdrawn from us such right. 
I had taken note of the terms of the new Convention, and read the 
legislative documents, those calculated to set forth the contentions 
of the contracting parties, but it did not appear to me that so un- 
happy an interpretation to Belgian interests could be drawn from 
the documents of preparatory labours—somewhat confused, it must 
be admitted, and deprived of clearness and precision. I was per¬ 
suaded that we still possessed the right of obtaining from the Congo 
State the communications inscribed by the law of 1890. I could not 
bring myself to believe that the Belgian Government, with no in¬ 
terest to the country, but, on the contrary, despite Belgian inter¬ 
ests .... 

M. Bertrand : — The Government has always sacrificed them ! 

M. Masson :— .... had made such an unbelievable conces¬ 
sion to the Congo State, and I cannot understand the motives which 
induced it to do so, unless it was desired to push condescension and 
accommodation beyond reasonable limits. 

M. Bertrand : — This is one of the remarkable faculties of the pres¬ 
ent Government. 

M. Masson : — But, confronted with the unanimous opinion of my 
hon. colleagues, with whom I consulted in all three parts of the 
House, I am compelled to bow to facts, and take things as they are. 
We have, therefore, no rights. We can claim nothing. The Congo 
Government does not like intervention in its affairs. Publicity is 
repugnant to it. It may be compared with the owner of a great 
domain, who, saddled with the weight of an immense and complicated 
business, intends to settle it himself, and manage his fortune with 
jealous care, without consulting presumptive heirs, without initiat¬ 
ing successors to the numerous difficulties which they will some dav 
have to confront. It is somewhat human, but the desire of the sue- 


* This is quite inaccurate. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 163 

cessors not to be systematically put on one side, and kept in ignorance, 
is thoroughly legitimate. Now such is our case. The possibility of 
annexation must preoccupy us. The question will necessarily come 
forward' one day, and perhaps before long. Various circumstances 
can bring it about, and we know that twice previously it came before 
us, in 1885 and 1901. As M. Vandervelde truly said, it is not in a 
few days, or in a few months, that we can form an enlightened and 
accurate opinion on the condition of the Congo State, or pronounce 
on the advisability of annexation. The inventory of a great domain 
cannot be made on the lines of an individual will. To understand 
a country, the life of that country must be lived, and its daily public 
manifestoes followed. If we know so well what takes place in 
Belgium; if we are thoroughly convinced of her true interests, of the 
character of her institutions, it is because we see history in the 
making, every day. Not an important event escapes us. All the acts, 
outcome of the powers of the State, are undertaken in public, are 
discussed before the eyes of the nation. It is to be hoped that such 
may be the same for the Congo State. If we are disarmed by the 
Convention of 1901, if we can no longer formulate an injunction, we 
can at least express a demand. I cannot believe that that demand 
would be repelled. It is too legitimate to be met with a refusal. But 
if the case should be otherwise, if what our interest demands is not 
recognised, we should still possess means of action sufficiently power¬ 
ful to break down all unreasonable resistance, and that would be the 
time to make use of it (applause on the opposition benches). The 
Government must emerge from the lamentable situation in which it 
has placed itself. Its dignity compels it. The Government must tell 
us, if it has sufficient independence and firmness to associate itself 
with us, if it has resolved to demand from the Congo State the com¬ 
munication of all documents calculated to enlighten the House and 
the country, even though the Congo State were to be pressed on the 
point, or whether the Government prefers to leave Belgium in 
ignorance of things which it ought to know, rather than displease the 
Congo State. If the Government adopts the latter attitude, the only 
thing that can be said of it is that its members are the docile servants 
of the Congo State, pushing a wish to please to the point of servility. 
(“ Very good, very good.” Applause on the left and extreme left.) 

The Speaker: —Gentlemen, three more speakers are inscribed, but 
all have promised to be brief. On the other hand, the Chancellor of 
the Exchequer has also asked to be heard. Under these conditions, 
will not the House consent to prolong the sitting, in order to allow 
the debate to be brought to an end? (Unanimous approval.) 

M. Mullendorff: —Shall we vote to-day? 

The Speaker :—Certainly. 

SPEECH BY THE PREMIER. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Gentlemen, I have only a few observa¬ 
tions to make. The House will certainly have been struck by the 
weakness of the reply given by M. Vandervelde to my speech of 
yesterday. As I remarked in the course of my explanations, it was 
not my business to produce here specific figures as regards the 
amount of the revenues of the Domaine de la Couronne , and their 
usage, or as regards the management of the finances of the Congo 


164 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES. 

State. All I had to do was to demonstrate the amount of confidence 
which the work of M. Cattier deserves, and it is with that object 
that I pointed to several gross errors in the figures cited by the 
author.* The reply of M. Yandervelde in no way contradicts my 
demonstration. Referring to what belongs in Belgium to the 
Domaine of the Crown of the Congo, the Hon. Member replies by 
speaking of the Colonial Palace at Tervueren. Now, I said that the 
Domaine possesses in Brabant real estate in the arrondissement of 
Brussels and Louvian. My critic loses sight of the fact that Tervue¬ 
ren is in the arrondissement of Louvain, as he forgot that Middel- 
kerke belongs to the arrondissement of Ostend. The Hon. Member 
quoted, moreover, the Domaine of the Ardennes, of Ciergnon, and 
yillers-sur-Lesse. Now, far from belonging to the Domain of the 
Crown of the Congo, these estates be^ng to the Belgian State, with 
the exception of the usufruct reserved by the royal donor, on the 
strength of the donation made a few years ago by His Majesty King 
Leopold II. A word as to the Congo debt. M. Vandervelde thinks 
that a capital of 50 millions, at least, coming from loans, has, in a 
sense, been dissolved into smoke, and that this debt, being short of a 
counter-value, will come as a dead loss to Belgium, the day when 
the latter takes over the Colony. Does M. Vandervelde ignore, then, 
all the considerable expenses, the results of which are described in 
the picture traced by the Commission of Inquiry at the opening of 
its Report, and which must evidently have been covered for the 
greater part by the loan. Studies for railways; mineral reserves; 
works of fluvial importance on the river and its affluents; the con¬ 
struction of inland ports, notably the great fluvial port of Leopold¬ 
ville, which was admired by the Commission of Inquiry; f the 
extension of the flotilla; defensive works on the territory; does all 
this count for nothing in the extraordinary expenses of the Congo 
State ? 

M. Vandervelde: —This does not do away with the fact that mil¬ 
lions have been expended in unproductive w T orks outside the Colony. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —That is quite a gratuitous statement. 
You mix up the Domaine de la Couronne with the finances of the 
Congo State. Gentlemen, M. Masson gave legitimate homage to the 
Commission of Inquiry, but he is strangely mistaken when he thinks 
that the book of M. Cattier is a sort of authorised commentary of 
that Report, One would think M. Masson had not read the book 
of M. Cattier. 

M. Buyl:— He did not speak to us about it. You were not 
listening. 

M. Hymans:— He spoke of the Report of the Commission of In¬ 
quiry, and not of the book of M. Cattier. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— I am taking note of an interruption 
by M. Masson to my speech of yesterday. Here is what I read in 
the shorthand report, page 385, in connection with the passage of 
my speech where I call M. Cattier’s book a pamphlet:— 

“ M. Masson :—How can you say that? He lias done nothing more than 
paraphrase the Report of the Commission of Inquiry.” 


* r, 'he ideas of M. de Smet de Naeyer, with regard to the exposure of gross 
errors, can he left to the discretion of the reader! 

t Which Commission also stated that the population around Leopoldville was 
dying out, crushed to earth by the monstrous food tax. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 165 

M. Jourez: —He spoke to us to-day about the Report 

M. Hymans: —He has just made his speech. You ought to reply 
to that speech, and not to the interruption. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —I have the right to reply to the inter¬ 
ruption of the Hon. M. Masson, and I refer him to what M. Rene 
Vauthier has just written, in a very interesting criticism, published 
by the “ Mouvement Maritime et Colonial ”:— 

“ Thy author of the study on the condition of the Congo State,” says M. 
Vauthier, “ does not hesitate to deplore on many occasions the incompetence, 
not to say the ignorance which in his opinion is attested by so many errors( !) 
of the Members of the Commission of Inquiry sent to the Congo . . . .” 

I will not inflict the House with a further quotation, but I advise 
my hon. colleagues to read the pamphlet entitled, “A Wicked Book,” 
reproducing the criticism of M. Vauthier, and they will recognise 
that the book of M. Cattier, far from being an authorised comment 
upon the Report of the Commission of inquiry, is the opposite. 
Gentlemen, I do not wish to abuse the right of speech, but I must 
really point out to the House an amusing contradiction. The 
present debate has been concerned to a large extent with the labour 
exacted from the natives as a tax in kind, and to coercion, and you 
have heard the Hon. M. Beernaert express on this subject an opinion 
which is opposed to that defended by M. Carton de Wiart and by 
myself. Now, if I open the book of M. Cattier, on page 106 I find 
the following passage:— 

“ It is inaccurate that coercion is the only means that colonising States 
possess to obtain black labour.. It would seem that here we can observe 
among the members of the Commission a relative inexperience, and, more¬ 
over, a very natural one, of colonial affairs . . . .” 

In other words, gentlemen, the incompetence, not to say the igno¬ 
rance, of the Commission of Inquiry, as M. Vauthier writes! M. 
Cattier acquired his experience of colonial affairs at Bangkok, in 
the service of the Anglo-Siamese Government! (Murmurs on the 
left.) 

“ Contrary to what the Commission thinks,” continues M. Cattier, “ the 
native can be constrained to furnish a certain amount of labour by many 
indirect means. One of the latter is the imposition of a tax in money, whether 
the basis of the impost is individually, per hut, or per village. The native 
does not possess money; he is therefore compelled to buy, and he can only 
procure it by buying it from European merchants against commercial products. 
These commercial products he is compelled to collect them, and is therefore 
led to work.” 

It would seem, then, that the solution of the problem of accustom¬ 
ing the black man to labour consists in substituting indirect coercion 
for direct coercion. M. Cattier does not perceive that he is solving 
the question by the question, losing sight of the fact that the ob¬ 
stacles by which we are opposed is, precisely, the apathy and the 
absence of all requirements on the part of the negro. Is not this a 
truly childish argument? The Congo State compels the native to 
furnish it, as a tax, with forty hours’ labour per month.* Horror! 
cries M. Cattier; you compel him to work, and this constraint is 
opposed to human liberty! What you ought to do would be to 
establish a tax in money, either on himself, or on his hut, or on his 
village. The negro has no money, and he will be compelled to work 


* Translated in practice by 286 days per annum minimum. 




166 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

to get some! Now, gentlemen, the native who is compelled to work 
for a small part of his time * knows what is required of him, and 
is in a position to give what is required of him, the more so as he sees 
the white men working themselves. But if you ask him for money, 
which he has not, and which he cannot acquire except by one par¬ 
ticular means, which hitherto has been repugnant to him, he will 
understand nothing, and he will certainly not understand that he 
should be called upon to furnish what he does not possess. It is, 
moreover, established by the example of other colonies, as M. Cattier 
pointed out, that the hut tax or village tax engenders the worst 
abuses in the work of enforcement and recovery of taxes (on the 
extreme left, “ Divide, divide ”). 

There only remains for me, gentlemen, to explain the reasons for 
which the Government agrees with the [Resolution of the Hon. M. 
Beernaert, and rejects that of the Hon. M. Masson and friends. I do 
not refer to the Resolution of the Hon. M. Coifs; I do not consider it 
as serious (laughter on the left and on the extreme left). 

M. Golfs :—You refuse, therefore, to employ the only means which 
are efficacious! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The Resolution of the Hon. M. Beernaert, 
after having noted that the House “ is imbued with the ideas which 
presided over the foundation of the Congo State, and inspired the 
Act of Berlin, renders homage to all those who have devoted them¬ 
selves to this civilising enterprise. It goes without saying—I 
already drew attention to it in an interruption—that we place at the 
head of the persons thus referred to, the King-Sovereign, to whose 
admirable perseverance Belgium is indebted for this African con¬ 
quest. 

M. Bertrand : —Do not forget M. de Browne de Tiege. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—I am not going to prolong the debate by 
replying to interruptions of that kind. 

M. Lorand: —You are giving to the Resolution of M. Beernaert 
the character of a congratulatory Order of the Day. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —Thirdly, the Resolution of the Hon. M. 
Beernaert expresses confidence in the proposals which the Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry is elaborating, as also in the conclusions which will 
be given ,to them. The Government shares that sentiment, which 
covers both the Commission and the Congo State. Finally, gentle¬ 
men, the Government associates itself the more willingly with the 
Resolution considering that the Government itself is the author of 
the projected law of the 7th August, 1901, a discussion of which the 
Hon. M. Beernaert invites the House to consider as soon as possible. 
As for the Resolution proposed by the Hon. M. Masson and friends, 
the Government rejects it. First, because it does not contain that 
legitimate homage of which I have spoken; and also because the 
Government cannot accept a suggestion that we should claim from 
the Congo State the communication of documents, accounts and 
reports relating to the administration of a State which is only respon¬ 
sible to itself. Just as the Congo State would hasten to furnish us 
with all details which might be useful, on the day on which we should 
be agreed to examine the question of immediate annexation, so it 

* The deliberate mendacity of this and similar statements, in view of the 
Report of the Commission of Inquiry, is truly remarkable. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 167 

■would refuse to consent to such an injunction (interruptions on the 
left). The Hon. M. Masson criticises sharply the fact that, by the 
law of the 7th August, 1901, Belgium renounced all right of control 
in the affairs of the Congo State. The Hon. Member forgets that 
this right was deprived of all efficacious sanction. Moreover, Par¬ 
liament gave a thoughtful vote in 1901, and many hon. members of 
the Liberal left adhered to it: MM. Hymans, Huysmans, Lepage, 
Lief mans, Mullendorff, Van-de-Venne, Warocque, and many others. 

M. Bertrand :—They were wrong, that is all. 

M. Hymans :—We explained our vote. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —We found ourselves, therefore, in numer¬ 
ous and excellent company. I close bv asking the House to vote the 
Resolution presented by the Hon. M. Beernaert. (“ Very good ” on 
the right.) (Cries from all parts of the House, “ Divide, divide.”) 

The Speaker: —M. Hymans is in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. HYMANS. 

M. Hymans: —I only speak in order to explain very briefly the 
motives for which I shall vote the Resolution presented by M. Masson. 
The position of Belgium towards the Congo State restricts in a 
singular degree the field of Parliamentary action. The Congo State 
is a free and Sovereign State. The personal union gives to Belgium 
no portion of responsibility, or of intervention in the management of 
Congo affairs. Far more than this, there does not exist between 
Belgium and the Congo any relation whatever, official or diplomatic.* 
So much so that in law, and in appearance, there is complete sepa¬ 
ration. In point of fact, the links, on the contrary, are intimate and 
close. The Government of the Congo has its headquarters in Brus¬ 
sels, Belgium finds the capital for Congolese enterprises. The 
Belgian Government helps the Congo State to live, by lending it 
its officers, its diplomatists, its officials. 

M. Bertrand :—And its millions! 

M. Hymans: —So much so that Baron Yan Eetvelde, then Secre¬ 
tary of State for the Congo State, w^rote on the 28th March, 1901, 
u The Congo has become Belgian, in fact.” Finally, on the death of 
the King, the Congo is destined to come to Belgium. Between facts 
and law, there is, therefore, a striking contradiction, and this contra¬ 
diction is obvious each time that a debate takes place in this House 
on Congo affairs. This has been largely manifest in the present 
discussion. When we discuss Congo affairs here, the Government 
takes refuge behind the personal union, and declares itself incompe¬ 
tent to reply. Immediately after, we see the same Minister, who 
has sheltered himself behind this non possumus , speak and explain 
himself, not as Minister of the Government, but as a Belgian and an 
advocate of the Congo State! 

M. de Smet de Naeyer : —Do you deny me the right of speaking as 
a member of the House? 

M. Hymans: —Well, sir (addressing M. de Smet de Naeyer), I do 
not understand how the head of a Government does not realise how 
abnormal and shocking such a situation is. 

M. Woeste :—You would do the same thing. 


* Nevertheless, the Sovereign of the Congo State uses the diplomatic and 
Consular machinery of Belgium in favour of his Congo enterprise. 



168 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


M. Hymans: —What do you know about it? But I would thank 
you not to interrupt. 

M. Woeste :—I am positive, because you could not do anything else. 

M. Hymans:—I said, therefore, that such a situation is abnormal 
and shocking. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—In opposition! 

M. Hymans: —It is dangerous for the Sovereign, whom it leaves 
without defence, to attacks from outside and from within. It dimin¬ 
ishes the dignity of the Government, and it has this essential fault of 
reposing on a fiction which is contradicted by all facts. 

M. Woeste: —Everything in life is fiction! (Laughter on the 
left.) 

M. Vandervelde :—There is an avowal! 

M. Hymans: —Yes, there are political fictions, which are possible 
on certain occasions, but when these fictions are seen through, they 
must be set aside. Fictions which break away at every point, which 
are in flagrant contradiction with facts, cannot be upheld. In 190L 
upon the expiration of the Convention of 1890, Belgium had to pro¬ 
nounce herself on the annexation of the Congo, and I am convinced 
that if, at that moment, the Government had wished it, if it had 
shown energy, annexation would have triumphed. A movement in 
favour of it was manifested on the benches of the right and on certain 
benches of the left. Members of the left, admirers of the Congo 
enterprise, and sincere partisans from the start of colonial policy—I 
was amongst them, as also M. Braun and our regretted colleague, M. 
Baudouin—were in favour of annexation, wdiereas, on the right, M. 
Beernaert and several of his colleagues presented an annexation bill. 

M. Delporte: —The King will not have it. 

M. Hymans :—However, these annexationist tendencies, with 
which many groups of the Chambers were animated, remained pla¬ 
tonic. Why ? Because there w T as a prior and essentially indispensa¬ 
ble condition to any resolution on annexation, namely, the existence 
of legislation settling the regime to be applied to the Colony. This 
condition did not exist. The Government ought to have taken the 
opportunity of initiating such legislation, in order to make the 
House free to give a decision on annexation. The Gfovernment got 
out of it, and the lack of all colonial law was the reason which the 
Congo State immediately invoked to oppose the project. The Congo 
State replied: “ Belgium is not ready. She is not in a position 
to replace at the present time the existing administration.” The 
Government having stood aside, Parliament was compelled to do 
the same. Under these conditions, we were compelled to approve a 
vote on the law which put an end to the regime contracted in 1890. 
We explained ourselves. It fell to me to say, in the name of my 
friends, in the name of those who had agreed to annexation, that the 
vote which we were giving was a vote of “ resignation,” and that the 
solution brought by the new law was in our opinion but a “ provi¬ 
sional solution.” Here are the words which I then used:— 

“ While blaming the Government for not having invested this matter, which 
affects the gravest interests of the country, with the energy, virility and 
sincerity it required, we resign ourselves to vote the project as being under 
actual conditions the only possible solution; a solution which in our view is 
essentially provisional.” 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF BEPRESENTATIVES. 169 

M. Vandervelde :—It is none the less very regrettable that you 
should have renounced a control which you now demand. 

M. Hymans: —In the situation in which we found ourselves placed, 
it was impossible for us to realise our wishes, and, being partisans of 
colonial policy, we gave a vote of confidence under the reserves which 
I have just recalled. Well, the provisional cannot last for ever. 

M. Woeste: —It is only the provisional which lasts (laughter on 
the right). 

M. Hymans :—I desire very much, in the interests of Belgium and 
the Congo State, that the necessity of not prolonging the provisional 
shall be realised. Certainly, I do not hide from myself the difficulties 
of administering an equatorial colony, nor the complications which 
a Parliamentary intervention would bring about. But foreign legis¬ 
lations show us numerous kinds of colonial systems, which, while 
leaving to local Governments a large portion of autonomy and au¬ 
thority, nevertheless give way before consultative councils, and the 
supreme control of Parliament. Absolutism has been praised. Ab¬ 
solutism was, perhaps, necessary in the opening stages, during the 
period of foundation, where a powerful hand and single will were 
needed. This will manifested itself with an amplitude and with a 
tenacity which all the world has praised, and from which I, for my 
part, have never refused admiration. But, gentlemen, absolutism, 
even in Africa, and even were it exercised in a genial spirit, is not 
a durable system. Its highest mission at the present time would be 
to prepare the transition towards a system of carefully elaborated 
control, collaboration and publicity (applause on the left). The 
future must be prepared for, and that is why, in the two Resolutions 
which have been brought forward, on the right and on the left, avc 
find this idea, in which all are united, even the Government, to dis¬ 
cuss in the briefest possible time the projected law on colonial pos¬ 
sessions, which was brought fonvard five years ago, and which, by 
reason of Go\ r ernment inertia, has remained bound to the wheels of 
the Parliamentary machine. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You Avould be better employed in criti¬ 
cising Parliamentary inertia. When the Government brings forAvard 
a project, it is with the hope and with the desire to see it discussed at 
an opportune moment, and it is for the House to hasten the matter. 

M. Hymans:— Gentlemen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer de¬ 
posits a laAv on a colonial regime. He brings it forward in the name 
of the Government. He declares, in formal terms, to the Central 
Committee of 1901, even before the project is deposited:— 

“ The Government thinks it is necessary that this laAv should be voted in 
the briefest delay possible, as the events which can place Belgium in the posi¬ 
tion of paving to utilise the possibility of annexation cannot be foreseen.” 

That is what the Government said in 1901. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— And the Government continues to 
think so. 

M. Hymans: —Then for five years the Government keeps silence! 
Have Ave heard upon a single occasion, in our debates during the last 
five years, the Government call to mind the projected law on the 
administration of the colonial possessions of Belgium, pointing out 
to the House its interest, its importance, its urgency? The Govern¬ 
ment has never held such language; it has done nothing to hasten the 


170 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

•examination of the projected law; and, in truth, the Parliamentary 
slowness of which it seems to complain, to-day, corresponded with its 
secret desires * (applause on the left). 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I deny it absolutely. 

M. Leonard:— You have allowed the Central Committee to fall 
asleep. 

M. Hymans : — Moreover, the Government has a singular idea of 
the part it should play in this House. It is the business of the Gov¬ 
ernment to look after our work; it is the Government’s business, 
whether it is a matter of the Budget or of anything else, to direct the 
action of the House, to bring forward useful projects, to see that 
urgent and useful proposals which it has initiated should be exam¬ 
ined and voted. That is especially the role of a Government imbued 
with the nature of its duties and its responsibilities. 

M. Lorand : — Every time that it brings forward a proposal, which 
it really wishes to see voted, it does not allow us to forget it, at the 
price of a night-sitting, if necessary. 

M. Hymans : — The question to-day seems only to have a retrospec¬ 
tive interest, since the Government is tardily full of zeal, and says 
that it is in agreement with the House to take up the examination of 
the proposed law on the colonial regime. And the Resolution of M. 
Masson brings up another question. M. Masson demands that Bel¬ 
gium should be in a position to become enlightened on the economic, 
financial and commercial condition of the Congo State, in order that 
when the da}^ dawns for annexation to be discussed, Parliament 
should come to a conclusion with a knowledge of the facts. The wish 
formulated by M. Masson corresponds with the desire of Public 
Opinion. The attention of the Public has been highly excited by 
the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. Important reforms are 
indispensable in the opinion of all, on the admission even of the 
Congo State, which brought about the inquiry, and which afterwards 
appointed a Commission to study and prepare the reforms. Grave 
problems have arisen, notably the problem of labour, which weighs 
upon all African colonies—that of taxation, that of the land reginie . 
It would be rash, in my opinion, to profess to settle them by theo¬ 
retical formulas. Absolute solutions are in all matters dangerous, 
and they are all the more dangerous where practical necessities, 
facts and contingencies dominate the situation. But there is one 
point upon which there is unanimous agreement between the Congo 
State, the Belgian Government, and the Belgian Parliament. The 
colonial system applied at the present time in the Congo con¬ 
tains serious defects, and calls for indispensable improvements. 
On that point, I repeat that this House is unanimous. The work 
of reform has begun,f and for my part I hope and believe that the 
Congo State will face necessities, and will fulfil all that Public 
Opinion demands. We ought not to be astonished, on the other 
hand, that Belgium desires enlightenment. She may be called upon, 
from one day to the next, to pronounce herself on annexation, and 
that is precisely why, in 1890, M. Beernaert promised the House a 
permanent inquiry, and regular information. I know very well 
that, to-day, thanks to the international position in which we are 
placed, Belgium has no rights towards the Congo State, and can 


* The King’s command! 


t No—not on the spot 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 171 

demand nothing from it, but what we cannot demand, can we not ask 
in a friendly way? Cannot the Belgian Government, which every 
day lends its help to the Congo State, carry on friendly negotiations 
with that State, to obtain from it the necessary documents to instruct 
the House and Public Opinion in the interest of the Colony, as in 
the interests of Belgium. The Prime Minister has just answered 
in advance for the Congo State, that the latter will never consent 
to give satisfaction to such a demand; that its dignity would be 
opposed to it. Gentlemen, I do not think so. In what way would 
the dignity of the Congo State suffer, if its Government, upon the 
friendly demand of the Belgian Government, placed at the dis¬ 
posal of the latter the documents which were promised to it in 1890, 
thus allowing Belgium to become enlightened as to the commercial 
and financial situation of the Colony? I feel convinced, on the con- 
trarv, that such negotiations, carried out by the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, with the tact and ability which are habitual to him, are 
bound to succeed. Gentlemen, the responsibility of the Government 
is involved in this matter. It is for the Government to act. In 
acting it would not show any hostile or suspicious intention towards 
the Congo State, nor would such action amount to intervention. It 
would be carrying out an act of solicitude and forethought, calcu¬ 
lated to prevent many future difficulties. I urge it very strongly 
to adopt the method which M. Masson has indicated. I am sure 
it will succeed. It is for these reasons, and in this spirit, that I 
shall vote the Resolution brought forward by my honourable friend 
(applause on the left). 

The Speaker:— M. P. Daens is in command of the House. (“ Di- f 
vide, divide.” “ Closure!”) 

M. Vandervelde:— M. Daens is in command of the House. It is 
too late to ask for the closure. 

SPEECH BY DE HEER P. DAENS. 

De PIeer P. Daens* : — You ought to sit here as great friends and 
great defenders of truth; whereas the truth about the Congo is per¬ 
sistently killed. The mouths of all the officials in the Congo are shut; 
silence is imposed upon the missionaries, and if they attempt to speak 
they are accused of being revolutionaries and democrats. By this 
means your capitalists have drawn millions and millions from the 
Congo. Nevertheless, notwithstanding everything, truth is piercing 
the clouds, and to-day you are compelled to admit that there are 
systematic abuses in the Congo. These are proved, not only by 
official documents, but by all the speeches pronounced here yesterday. 
We listened to M. de Smet de Naeyer. He wandered among his notes, 
and his words were produced with difficulty. He vainly tried to 
escape from the striking light of facts! He is blinded by his aristo¬ 
cratic ideas to such an extent that he dares to say that those who speak 
against the Congo are anti-patriotic, and enemies of civilisation. A 
magnificent civilisation, in very truth! M. Yerhaegen spoke elo¬ 
quently in congratulating the missionaries; but he forgot to say how 
they suffered in seeing their work crushed by the infamous conduct 

* M. Uaens’ speech was given in Flemish, and the above translation is a 
translation from the Flemish text. 



172 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

of European civilisers. We also heard the great hero, M. Woeste. 
He is fully informed of everything that takes place in the Congo; 
but he does not desire that the abuses should cease. M. Woeste knows 
of the evils which exist on the Congo, but he will not have any re¬ 
forms. He did not end his speech by saying, “ Institute an inquiry. 
Seek out abuses, and put an end to them.” No, he ended by saying, 
“ Continue, and do not listen to calumny!” Yesterday, again, in 
the course of the eloquent speech of M. Lorand, when M. Terwangne 
gave a fine homage to truth, we heard M. Woeste, like a school¬ 
master, read a lesson to his young pupil. You seem to be of opinion, 
M. Woeste, that this immense colony can be oppressed in an inhuman 
fashion, in order to extract millions from it. And what do you make 
of religion ? Did not Christ give to His Apostles other means of civil¬ 
ising and conquering the world? Are you ignorant of the fact that 
St. Amans and St. Lievien adopted quite different means to convert 
our country? Have you never read the bitter complaints of Chris¬ 
topher Columbus, at the sight of the exploitation and the horrors 
committed by the Spaniards? (Uproar, and cries of “ Divide, di¬ 
vide,” “ Let M. Daens continue in French.”) This will teach you to 
make fun of your native language (numerous voices: “ To-morrow ”). 

M. P. Daens (speaking in French) :—Can I continue my speech 
to-morrow (addressing the speaker) ? 

The Speaker: —Silence, gentlemen. The House has decided to 
finish the interpellation to-day. M. Daens is in .command of the 
House. I would thank him to be good enough to cut short his ob¬ 
servations. 

M. Vandervelde: —Would it be convenient to declare the discus¬ 
sion closed, and to ask the orator to continue his speech to-morrow? 
(Protests on numerous benches.) 

The Speaker: —Two more orators are inscribed. 1 propose to 
hear them, but to postpone the voting until to-morrow at three 
o'clock. (“ Yes, yes.” “ No, no.” Uproar.) 

The Speaker: —Please retain your seats, gentlemen. M. Daens 
is in command of the House. 

M. Flechet: —Will the vote be given to-morrow or not, at three 
o’clock ? 

The Speaker :—The vote will take place to-morrow at three o’clock. 
M. Daens is in command of the House. 

De Heer P. Daens (continuing in Flemish) :—Francis Xavier 
said that in the islands of the Indian Archipelago, where Spanish trad¬ 
ers has passed, not a solitary human being was left. The European 
civilisers, by their thirst for gold and sensual pleasure, had plunged 
the natives into such a condition of degradation that the work of the 
missionaries remained sterile. Do you not fear, gentlemen, that the 
same state of affairs will take place in the Congo? And will not 
these unfortunate natives, tired of being oppressed and ground 
down, rise some day to throw off the yoke which oppresses them so 
cruelly, and kills them ? I think it is a disgrace for the Conservative 
Party* to refuse to cause these abuses to cease; abuses pointed out 
on all sides, and to allow the Liberal and Socialist Parties to make 
themselves the vehicle of complaints. The masses of the people, 
which did not regard favourably this enterprise at the beginning, 


* E. g., the Clerical Party. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 173 

saw clearly and gauged the situation. You say that markets are 
required for Belgian industry and commerce. But these markets 
exist in the interior of our country. Open your eyes, and see the 
great number of families who are lacking in necessary food, and to 
whose interests you should devote in the first place your riches, to 
take them out of their misery, and put an end to their existence and 
privations. Not only is this talk of markets a flare of trumpets, but 
religion itself has dwindled more during the last twenty-four years 
of Conservative Government, than during the fiftv preceding vears. 
Open your eyes, and you will see in Brussels, around your magnificent 
monuments, beside starving families, and yet you come to speak to 
us of openings for Belgian gold. And all the promises which rich 
men make here on such occasions are, as always, vain promises. But 
the day will come when the light of truth w'ill be thrown upon the 
Congo, and you will be plunged in shadow. For truth is comparable 
to steam, which, when compressed, acquires a stronger power. Be¬ 
ware of the explosion, for it will destroy you ! 

SPEECH BY M. HELLEPUTTE. 

M. Helleputte : — Gentlemen, I do not intend to make a long 
speech. I had not put myself down as a speaker in the discussion, 
and I only intended to vote the Resolution of the Hon. M. Beernaert. 
The speech of M. Vandervelde compels me to take part in the dis¬ 
cussion, and to make a few brief observations. It is necessary that 
there should be no doubt as, to the significance of the Resolution, 
which w T e intend to vote. The Hon. Member told us that he could not 
agree with the part of the Resolution of the Hon. M. Beernaert which 
approves of all those who have devoted themselves to the civilising 
work undertaken in the foundation of the Congo State. He asked 
us, in this respect, if we intended to approve of all those who, under 
various conditions, and in various capacities, have participated in 
what has been done in the Congo. I hasten to say, No. In referring 
to those who contributed to the “ civilising work,” we intend to 
make a profoundly clear distinction between those who have acted in 
the Congo with real civilising intent, and those who have been guilty 
or have been accomplices in the acts of cruelty which have been 
pointed out. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— This is obvious in itself. 

M. Helleputte : — I hope that this declaration will suffice, and 
will re-assure all the Members of this House. I would add, moreover, 
that the acts of cruelty committed in the Congo do not appear to me 
to be only adherent in the individuals who have committed them. I 
do not think that Belgians are more cruel than people of other coun¬ 
tries. I am convinced that they are less cruel. I think in other 
colonies acts as cruel, more cruel, and in greater number, take place.* 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—Quite so. 

M. Helleputte : — That is no excuse for those who have committed 
the acts here denounced (approval on the extreme left). 

M. Vandervelde That is the point. 

M. Lorand:— Very good. 


In no colony, since tlie middle ages. 



174 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—Agreed. 

M. Helleputte :—But this should ensure for us a certain amount 
of moderation in the attacks to which we are subjected to abroad, and 
I add that these acts of cruelty are not, in my opinion, merely the 
result of individual violence or vices, but that they are, in part, the 
result of the existing regime (“ Very good ” on the opposition 
benches). 

M. Vandervelde :—That is the question. 

M. Helleputte :—I am here compelled to reply briefly to the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer on the subject of coercion, and forced labour. 
The Hon. Minister endeavoured to make out that the direct coercion 
which flourishes at the present moment on the Congo is analogous, 
with very little difference, to the indirect coercion which might 
result, for instance, from the introduction of a cash currency, and 
taxation in cash. The Minister is here confusing matters in a re¬ 
grettable way, and I am astonished. Do you understand what indi¬ 
rect coercion would mean on the Congo if a currency were intro¬ 
duced, and if taxation was demanded in cash ? * It would be merely 
the regime which exists here amongst us. • Why do labourers work? 
Do not all people work who have not sufficient income? They are 
compelled to work, in order to earn sufficient to live. Those who do 
not know how to live without working, are compelled to work to live. 
They must work also to earn the sum of money which is claimed 
from them as a tax. Consequently, what the Minister calls a system 
of indirect coercion is simply the system which exists amongst us, 
and this system differs totally from that prevailing on the Congo. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —You do not understand me. 

M. Helleputte: —All the better. I am glad, and I shall be 
delighted to hear your explanations either to-day or to-morrow. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —I shall at once clear away this misunder¬ 
standing. 

M. Helleputte: —In any case it is beyond doubt that the disap¬ 
pearance of forced labour and of coercion must be demanded by 
everyone, and that if it cannot for grave reasons be immediately sup¬ 
pressed, everything must be done to suppress it as soon as possible 
(applause on the opposition benches.) Gentlemen, the Hon. M. Hy¬ 
mans, defending the Resolution brought forward by the Hon. M. 
Masson, justified in excellent terms the Resolution brought forward 
by the Hon. M. Beernaert. I take the liberty of pointing this out to 
him. M. Vandervelde had already declared that he was in agree¬ 
ment with the first part of the Resolution of M. Beernaert, reading 
as follows:— 

“ The House, imbued with the ideas which presided at the foundation of the 
Congo State, and inspired the Act of Berlin, etc.” 

I congratulate the Hon. Member, and I hope that the whole of the 
House will endorse this part of the Resolution of the Hon. M. Beer¬ 
naert. But M. Hymans justified two other parts of the Resolution 
of M. Beernaert, and precisely the two parts by which this Resolu¬ 
tion is distinct from that of M. Masson. M. Hymans, not following 

* How can the Congo native pay his tax in cash, when he owns nothing, has 
nothing to sell in order to acquire cash? 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 175 

in this respect M. Vandervelde, said that he had confidence in the 
measures which would be recommended bv the Commission of Re¬ 
forms constituted by the Congo State, following the conclusion of 
the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. Now. this is precisely 
what the Resolution of M. Beernaert contains:— 

“ In view of the conclusions of tbe Commission of Inquiry instituted by the 
Congo State, expressing confidence in tbe proposals wbicb are being elaborated 
by tbe Commission of Reforms, as also in tbe results which will follow there¬ 
from . . . .” 

This is the Resolution of M. Beernaert. What does it mean? It is 
clear in the eyes of all that it means that the House admits that re¬ 
forms are indispensable, that they must be accomplished as soon as 
possible, that the House hopes that the Commission of Reforms will 
demand all the necessary reforms, that these reforms will be realised* 
Why, then, does not M. Hymans agree with the Resolution of 
M. Beernaert ? 

M. Vandervelde :—What is much less easy to understand is how 
the Government can agree to that Resolution, after the explanation 
given thereupon by M. Beernaert, and by M. Helleputte himself 
(laughter on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand: —If the Resolution of M. Beernaert has the signifi¬ 
cance which is attributed to it by M. Helleputte, the Government can¬ 
not agree with it. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :— I indicated very clearly the significance 
of this Resolution, which the whole of the right is prepared to vote, 
and which was communicated to me before it was brought forward 
(uproar on the extreme left). 

M. Lorand:— You are clearly equivocating. You agree with the 
Resolution of M. Beernaert, because you know that the House will 
vote it. But you would not dare to ask from the House a Resolution 
which would express your thoughts. That is what is necessary 
should be known. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—I repeat, my declarations have been quite 
clear. 

M. Lorand :—You are speculating on an equivocation. The Reso¬ 
lution of M. Beernaert is opposed to all the explanations you have 
given. The interpretation which M. Helleputte gives to that Resolu¬ 
tion proves it. 

M. Helleputte: —The Hon. M. Lorand is going, perhaps, a little 
too far. 

M. Vandervelde: —A little! (Laughter on the extreme left.) . 

M. Helleputte :—If a complaint might be made against M. 
Vandervelde, it would be that it would have been better to have 
waited, before bringing forward his interpellation, for the Commis¬ 
sion of Reforms to have published its conclusions. In telling him 
that, I do not wish to say anything which is disagreeable. A few 
days’ patience would have sufficed.* We should have been in a posi¬ 
tion to gauge the situation, but until the Commission for Reforms 
publishes its conclusions and its labours, and seeing that, according 

* This and similar declarations show that M. Helleputte bas not yet gauged 
tbe tortuousness of tbe Congo State. Tbe above statement was made on tbe 
1st March. Tbe Report is not published as we go to Press. 



176 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OE BEPBESENTATIVES. 

to the newspapers, it is in agreement with the conclusions of the Com¬ 
mission of Inquiry—this has not been denied—I do not really see 
why the House should not say that it has confidence in the proposals 
of the Commission of Reforms, and that the results given to them will 
be in conformity with what the situation demands. 

M. Vanderyelde The Commission of Inquiry maintains forced 
labour. 

M. Helleputte: —The second part of the Order of the Day of M. 
Masson, as to which I desire to say a word, is as follows:— 

“ Seeing that, before any discussion on the eventual annexation of the 
Congo, Belgium should be in a position to appreciate all the consequences which 
might result from annexation, without prejudicing the principles of the latter, 
and that in this respect it is especially necessary that the Government should 
demand from the Congo State the communication of all documents and reports 
calculated to enlighten Parliament, etc..” 

It is obvious, gentlemen, that we are all in agreement with the 
thoughts expressed in the above statement. Everyone in this House 
desires to be enlightened in the most complete manner before passing 
an opinion upon the annexation of the Congo. 

M. Vanoervelde :—Let us say so then. 

M. Carton de Wiart: —Would not this be the means of obtaining 
nothing? 

M. Lorand :—Information will not be given. 

M. ITeleeputte :—We are, therefore, all in agreement thereon, and 
this desire meets with no opposition on any bench in this House. 

M. Lorand: —On the Ministerial bench? 

M. Helleputte:— No,* but the Hon. M. Masson tells us that the 
Government must “ demand.” 

M. Masson :—Do you prefer “ ask ” ? 

M. Vandervelde:— Let us say “ ask.” 

M. Helleputte:— My hon. colleague, your Resolution bears the 
word “ demand.” I oi l not draw it up. 

M. Hymaxs:— I referred in my speech to a friendly negotiation. 

M. Helleputte: —Precisely. You spoke of a negotiation. We 
must therefore not “ demand,” but “ ask.” M. Hymans recognised 
this also, and that is why I said just now that when he defended the 
Resolution of M. Beernaert, which has the great advantage of de¬ 
manding nothing, but of permitting the House to ask for everything, 
and under much better conditions, and vi h a much better chance of 
success than under the conditions defined by the Resolution of M. 
Masson. The Resolution of M. Masson begs the Government to 
demand from the Congo State the communication of all documents, 
accounts and reports of a nature to enlighten Parliament. This is a 
very vague formula. I have more confidence in the Government 
than the Hon. M. Masson. The latter will admit, however, that he 
is leaving it entirely to the Government and to the Congo State as 
to the documents which shall be furnished. Is that w T hat he wants? 
In my view, it is the House which ought to indicate what are the 
precise data which it defires to obtain, and for that it has only to 
follow the regular course. That course is this. We are face to face 
with the project of the Government for the colonial possessions of 


* The words in the text are “ metis non" and it is probable that M. Helleputte 
meant to infer that even the Government was not opposed to being enlightened. 




CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. 177 

Belgium. This projected law has been sent to Committee. The 
Central Committee is constituted. It is this Central Committee of 
delegates from all parts of the House which must ask the necessary 
information from the Government. It is for it to ask the Govern¬ 
ment to dissipate all abuses, to throw light upon all obscure points. 
Following this course, we are certain to succeed. I hope that M. Hy¬ 
mans and M. Masson will recognise it. The conclusions of this de¬ 
bate would have a far more considerable significance if the Resolu¬ 
tion were voted unanimously by the House, instead of being voted by 
a majority, or a minority. 

M. Woeste : — I demand to be heard (voices on the left, “ Oh, oh!”). 

M. Helleputte:— Note well, gentlemen, that there is no dispute 
on the substance. There could be none. I have just shown that 
the form of the Resolution proposed by M. Beernaert responds better 
to the feeling of the House than the Resolution of M. Masson. That 
is w T hy I beg all members of this House to vote the Resolution of M. 
Beernaert. 

M. Vandervelde : — With the comments of M. Helleputte. 

M. Lorand : — Yes, with those comments. 

M. Mabille : — It is in that sense that it must be voted! 

The Speaker:— The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in command 
of the House. 


SPEECH BY THE PREMIER. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer I regret that M. Helleputte so misunder¬ 
stood me as regards the question of forced labour. First of all, 
this is what I said on the subject at the sitting of the 16th July. 
1901:— 

“ What are the taxes imposed upon the Blacks? If they are the native contri¬ 
butions to the expenses of the public services which are being organised with 
a view to the social and economic formation of the country, in a policed country, 
this contribution takes the form of imposts. But in the Congo there can be no 
question, at the present moment, of direct or even indirect imposts, for the 
simple reason that there is no acquired wealth, nor interior exchange of wealth, 
nor cash currency, apart from the small foreign population, and a few com¬ 
mercial enterprises which pay taxes in money. The Congo is in the position 
of all new countries, where, in the beginning, the impost is paid by forced 
labour. A day will come when the natives will pay the impost in currency, 
and I do not know if they will not complain more then than they do now.” 

My hon. colleague for Foreign Affairs, on the 2nd July, 1903, ex¬ 
pressed himself on the same question as follows:— 

“ In connection with the Tilkens affair, the Hon. M. Vandervelde criticised 
the action of the State towards the natives. He found it outrageous that forty 
hours labour per month should be imposed upon them.* But, gentlemen, 
the ideal placed before us here is an eight-hours day, and the duration of 


♦At the time that M. de Favereau made this statement, the law of forty 
hours’ labour per month did not exist, even on paper! It was only promul¬ 
gated in November, 1903. Upon its arrival in the country, the Commission 
of Reforms found that forty hours per month was represented in practice by 
280 days per annum. A party of missionaries, who have just returned from 
an itinerating mission in the Upper Maringa, have found this “ law ” to mean 
24 days out of every 28 spent in the forest, getting rubber. They have so 
reported to the Governor-General (April, 1906). 

S. Doc. 139, 59-2-12 



178 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


labour of forty hours per month does not represent more than an hour per 
day. Moreover, the lion. Member, after having affirmed that this was a forced 
tax, recognised that it was paid.” 

Finally, in my speech yesterday, I said that forced labour was only 
a transitional stage, and that the native tvill learn to work volun¬ 
tarily for the satisfaction of needs which he will have created for 
himself. I am, therefore, far from considering a forced labour tax 
as a normal and definite system. But I noted, in accordance with the 
Hon. M. Carton de Wiart, and the Commission of Inquiry, that 
under the actual circumstances it is the only way in which taxation 
can be levied upon the natives in the Congo. 

M. Helleputte : — That is not the point which I took up. 

M. Vandervelde :—But the labour tax is not a tax. Call it by its 
true name, the corvee. 

M. Lorand:— The rubber corvee! 

M. Helleputte:— The only point w T hich I took up was this. You 
said that between direct and indirect coercion there was only a shadow 
of difference. Now, there is an essential difference. That is what I 
pointed out. I did not say anything else. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— You placed yourself from the point of 
vieAv of the customs of a civilised nation. My point of view was 
quite different. Speaking of the book of M. Cattier, I said that the 
latter, while condemning direct coercion, especially on the Congo, in 
connection with the labour tax, recommended a system which evolved, 
necessarily, into labour-coercion. The native at the present time 
cannot retain money, since he obstinately refuses to work without 
being compelled.* When his education shall have been made, and he 
has created needs for himself,f it will be possible to establish a tax 
in cash, although up to the present the capitation or the hut tax has 
brought about a thousand difficulties in collection in the colonies 
where it has been applied. I did not make the apologia of the corvee , 
but I affirmed its necessity, at least for the time being. 

SPEECH BY M. WOESTE. 

M. Woeste:— Gentlemen, I wish to say a few words on the subject 
of the Resolutions, and principally in reply to the considerations 
which have been brought forward by M. Helleputte. The hon. mem¬ 
ber expressed the wish that the Resolution should be voted unani¬ 
mously. That is undoubtedly my wish, and it is even to be desired 
that in all matters Resolutions should be voted unanimously (laugh¬ 
ter). But there are fundamental divergencies of opinion between 
the signatories of the Resolutions of M. Masson and the partisans 
of the Resolution of M. Beernaert. I heard just now, while M. 
Helleputte was speaking, M. Lorand interrupting and saying that we 
were confronted with nothing but equivocations. Now the only equivo¬ 
cation which exists lies in the circumstance of the signatures placed 
at the foot of the Resolution of M. Masson by members of this assem¬ 
bly, who have made contradictory comments. Thus we heard, a 

* Thoroughly characteristic mendacity. 

t He has been robbed of everything, and has no right to sell or to buy. How 
then can he create needs for himself? He has nothing to trade with, yet he 
is declared to be idle. He has nothing to work for, yet he is declared to be 
amenable only to coercion. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 179 

moment ago, M. Hymans praising the Commission of Inquiry, and 
hoping that the Commission appointed by the Congo Government 
would bring about positive and happy results. Nevertheless, one of 
the signatories of the Resolution of M. Masson, M. Vandervelde, 
in the course of his speeches, has stated that we can have no confi¬ 
dence in the Commission, because the Congo State is incapable of 
reforming itself. 

M. Vandervelde: —I demand to be heard (interruption in the 
part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer). 

M. Woeste: —There is the equivocation. The different members 
Avho are disposed to vote this Resolution, have made speeches with 
regard to it which show complete disagreement, and astonishment 
is expressed that, under these circumstances, we do not agree with 
such a Resolution! As for the Resolution proposed by the Hon. M. 
Beernaert, comment upon it is to be found in the speech of the Minis¬ 
ter of Foreign Affairs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of M. Beer¬ 
naert himself, of M. Carton de Wiart, and of myself. It seems to 
me that the explanations given in this respect show very clearly 
the character of that Resolution. Having said so much, I return to 
the Resolution of the Hon. M. Masson, and I find that it contains 
a sentence which has just been discussed by the Hon M. Helleputte, 
and which shows complete disagreement with those who are disposed 
to subscribe to that sentence, and those who reject it. M. Helle¬ 
putte has just said that he does not adhere to the portion of the 
Resolution in which M. Masson invites the House to demand or 
to claim documents .... 

M. Helleputte —I do not admit the claim. 

M. Woeste:— . . . from the Congo State. I associate my¬ 

self in that respect with his position, but I do not associate myself 
in the least with the motives which the Hon. Member has given for 
the rejection of this portion of the Resolution of M. Masson. I 
think it necessary to draw the attention of the House to the true char¬ 
acter of the Resolution of M. Masson, which I am referring to at this 
moment. We are asked to say that it is necessary for the Govern¬ 
ment to demand, or to ask, if that be preferred, for the communica¬ 
tion of all documents, accounts and reports of a nature to enlighten 
Parliament. Well, supposing that the House does that, that the Gov¬ 
ernment agrees with it, and that it asks for details from the Congo 
State. Supposing that the Congo State refuses these documents. 
In what position will the Government be? In what position will 
Parliament be, which provoked the Government to make such a re¬ 
quest ? 

M. Vandervelde: —And what will be the position of the Congo 
State towards Belgium ? 

M. Woeste :—Gentlemen, there are situations which a Government 
and Parliament cannot accept, because they are contrary to its dignity, 
and the situation which it is desired to bring about, and which would 
be possible, would be such a one. But I go further, and I assume that 
the Government of the Congo State gives a favourable reply to the de¬ 
mand of the Government, and that it communicates to it all the docu¬ 
ments asked for, what will the House do with those documents ? The 
House has not before it a proposal for annexation, as I have shoAvn; 
it is not offered at this moment. Is the House going to discuss, in the 
abstract, documents of a State other than the Belgian State ? This is 


180 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


obviously unreasonable. We cannot ask the House to vote a proposal 
which can give rise to no practical result, and which involves, more¬ 
over, an infringement upon the rights of a foreign State. M. Helle- 
putte gave the opinion, in closing, that the proper thing to do is for 
the Central Committee, which has been appointed to examine the pro¬ 
jected law relating to colonial possessions, to see if it is necessary to 
demand from the Congo State the documents in question. I do not 
quite see at first sight how a Committee of the Belgian House could 
thus enter into relations with a foreign Government.* 

M. Mellot :—That is not the point. 

M. Woeste: —I do not quite understand either how the Belgian 
Government can claim documents from a foreign Government. 

M. Mellot: —We are agreed there is no question of demanding 
them, but of asking for them. 

M. Woeste :—But, my dear colleague, you have not listened to me, 
because I have just shown what would be the consequence of such 
a request if it were not granted, and the position would be abso¬ 
lutely the same in the circumstances which I have just detailed. It 
is manifest, moreover, that the projected law is a general proposal on 
the colonial possessions which Belgium might acquire one day, and that 
it does not aim directly at the Congo State. 

M. Hymans: —Here is an equivocation. The Government cate¬ 
gorically declared, when it brought forward the project of which 
you speak, that this project had in view the Congo Colony, and 
was brought forward in regard to the royal succession being open. 

M. Vandervelde: —That is shown in the preamble. 

M. Woeste: —There is no equivocation in what I say. It is true 
that the project was brought forward in view of the annexation 
of the Congo; but it is none the less true that it is of an absolutely 
general character, and that its object is to regulate the position 
of all colonial possessions which Belgium might acquire. Moreover, 
the debate on the latter point is premature. It is obvious that the 
Central Committee could demand from the Government details on 
the subject of the projected law; but I wish to establish in a few 
words that I can not in any way agree with the considerations, 
of too absolute a character, which M. Helleputte has put forward 
(voices from all parts of the House, “ To-morrow ”). 

M. Vandervelde : —I demand to be heard. 

M. Lorand:— We cannot go on under such conditions. Let us 
postpone the sitting until to-morrow. 

The Speaker :—We have now come to the discussion of the Reso¬ 
lution. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer: —The House decided that the discussion 
would be closed to-day. 

M. Verhaegen :—And that we should vote to-day. 

The Speaker :—Pardon me. 

M. Lorand :—What is the use of taking decisions, if they are not 
to be kept ? 

M. de Smet de Naeyer :—d insist that we should finish to-day. I 
am compelled to assist at a debate in the Senate to-morrow. 

* M. Woeste, in short, is prepared to back the King, to prevent or delay 
annexation, by any and every means possible. 



CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 181 

The Speaker: —M. Vandervelde, for the third time, has asked to 
be heard. 

M. Vandervelde : — I am not going to speak for more than sixty 
seconds, at most. 

The Speaker: —You are in command of the House. 

SPEECH BY M. VALDERVELDE. 

M. Vandervelde:— I wish to refer to a passage in the speech of 
M. Woeste. He maintained that the Resolution, which I counter¬ 
signed, is based upon an equivocation, because, says he, M. Hymans, 
who proposed to vote it, has confidence in the Commission of Re¬ 
forms, whereas I, on the contrary, have no such confidence, or in the 
results which might be given to its decisions. I should understand 
the objection of M. Woeste if the Resolution of M. Masson stated 
that we had confidence in the Commission of Reforms; but all it 
states is that we await the effects of the measures undertaken by the 
Congo State. 

M. Woeste : — That is the equivocation. 

M. Vandervelde: —It is quite natural, after the speech which I 
made, that I shall vote the Resolution of M. Masson, which I counter¬ 
signed. 

M. Liebart (Minister for Railways, Posts and Telegraphs) :— 
What is less natural is that the Liberal group should vote it 
(laughter). 

M. Vandervelde : — I speak in the name of the Socialist group, but 
if you interrupt me I shall exceed my sixty seconds. What is less 
natural is that the Government should agree with the Resolution of 
M. Beernaert, especially after the comments which have been made 
thereon by M.. Helleputte. M. Beernaert, indeed, refers to the prin¬ 
ciples of the Act of Berlin, and it is a secret for no one that the 
policy followed since 1892 is absolutely opposed to the feelings of the 
Hon. Minister for State. The truth is, therefore, that what the Gov¬ 
ernment is about to do is to sign its own condemnation, in order to 
avoid a more explicit condemnation. 


SPEECH BY M. COLFS. 

M. Colfs:— Gentlemen, the discussion which has taken place 
between the two Resolutions presented by M. Beernaert and M. 
Masson seems to show that neither of them can be accepted (laughter). 
M. Woeste has just said that it is inadmissible that the Belgian Gov¬ 
ernment should ask questions from the Congo Government, even to 
enlighten the debates on the subject relating to colonial possessions, 
without the risk of placing itself (in case of a refusal on the part of 
the Congo State) in a position which would compromise its dignity. 
The proposed law on the government of the colonies has led to a great 
number of questions among the members of the Central Committee. 
The latter will be compelled to put these questions before the Govern¬ 
ment, and we, therefore, know in advance that the latter will not be 
able to submit them to the Congo State. 

M. Woeste : — I am ignorant of the questions which have been put 
forward in the Committee. The Central Committee will have to 
deliberate on them. 


182 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF KEPBESENTATIVES. 


M. Coles: —These questions relate to the whole administration of 
the Congo, and the most important of them will necessitate demands 
for documents and details from the Government of the Congo State. 
But the Government will be unable to answer these questions, for fear 
of receiving a negative reply. What use, therefore, under these con¬ 
ditions, is an immediate discussion of the projected law asked for by 
the two Resolutions? In view of these two facts, there is only one 
practical conclusion possible to this interpellation, namely, that we 
must take steps to compel the Congo State to conduct itself in a more 
humane manner than it has done up to the present. That is the 
reason why I brought forward a Resolution which, without inter¬ 
vening in the administration of a foreign State, decides that our men, 
our soldiers, can no longer lend their services to the Congo State, as 
long as the necessary reforms have not been realised. To do so we 
shall not have to make any demands liable to rejection. All we shall 
have to do will be to oppose a categorical refusal to the Congo State 
until it has come to its senses. 

SPEECH BY M. BEERNAERT. 

M. Beernaert : — At the opening of the sitting, and when very few 
members were present, I enunciated the conditions which seemed to 
me to justify my Resolution. I did so thoroughly, and clearly. I 
think I have nothing to withdraw, nor to add to what I said, but I 
cannot but thank M. Helleputte for having suggested that my pro¬ 
posal should be approved by the whole House. M. Woeste thinks 
that there is contradiction between the speeches of M. Helleputte 
and mine. 

M. Woeste :—I did not say so. 

M. Beernaert: —Have you not just said so? 

M. Woeste: —I said that your comments upon the Resolution 
differed. 

M. Beernaert:— M. Helleputte contends that the Central Com¬ 
mittee instructed to elaborate the organic law might ask from the 
Government details on certain aspects of Congo affairs. I should 
see no inconvenience therein. M. Helleputte evidently does not mean 
that the Central Committee should exact this information. There 
would only be a question of asking, through the intermediary of the 
Belgian Government, for enlightenment which might seem useful. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— We are all agreed thereon. The thing 
is obvious. 

M. Beernaert : — I thought so, and, on the other hand, we are not 
called upon to instruct the Central Committee as to how it should 
proceed. „ 

M. Woeste:— That is evident. 

M. de Smet de Naeyer:— Every day we receive demands from 
Foreign Governments for information, with which we hasten to 
comply. But that is merely a question of courtesy, apart from any 
injunction, and reserve is made in case of grave inconvenience. 
Under these conditions, the Congo State would certainly hasten to 
assent to the demands which we might have to ask. 

M. Beernaert:— We are, therefore, agreed. There was only a sim¬ 
ple misunderstanding. 


CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 183 

M. Helleputte: —Gentlemen, the Hon. M. Beernaert has just ex¬ 
pressed in excellent terms what I wished to say. On the other hand, 
the Hon. M. Woeste having agreed with the point of view of the Hon. 
M. Beernaert, further comment is needless. 

The Speaker: —The debate is closed. 

FIFTH DAY’S DEBATE (MARCH 2ND). 

THE RESOLUTION—STORMY SCENES. 

After some discussion, the President informed the House that he 
proposed to put to the vote the first portion of the Resolution of 
M. Beernaert, viz.: 

“ The House, imbued with the ideas which presided over the founda¬ 
tion of the Congo State and inspired the Act of Berlin,” 

The above was adopted unanimously. 

The President then said that he intended to put the following por¬ 
tion of the Resolution:— 

“ renders homage to all those who have devoted themselves to this civil¬ 
ising work.” 

The above sentence was also adopted. 

The President then intimated that he would put the following 
sentence to the vote:— 

“And, seeing the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry instituted 
by the Congo State, confident in the proposals which the Commission of 
Reforms is elaborating, and in the consequences which will be given to 
them,” 

This was also adopted. 

The President then intimated that he intended to put to the vote 
another sentence, common to both Resolutions, reading as follows: 

“ and decides to proceed without delay to the examination of the 
projected law of the 7th August, 1901, on the government of the Colonial 
possessions of Belgium.” 

This was adopted unanimously. 

The President then intimated that he intended to put to the vote 
the two following passages in the Resolution of M. Masson, which 
differed from the Resolution of M. Beernaert:— 

“ Considering that before any discussion on the eventual taking over 
of the Congo, Belgium must be placed in a position to appreciate all the 
consequences which might result from annexation, without pre-judging 
the principle of the latter, and that, in this respect, it is especially neces¬ 
sary that the Government should demand from the Congo State the com¬ 
munication of all documents, accounts, and reports calculated to en¬ 
lighten Parliament.” 

Many members thereupon called out, “ ask.” * The President pointed 
out that he had not been informed of the amendment. Thereupon 
ensued a confused and passionate discussion as to whether the rules 
of the House allowed of the word “ ask ” being substituted for the 


♦ Instead of “ demand.”—See fourth day’s debate. 



184 CONGO DEBATE IN BELGIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


word “ demand ” after the closure had been pronounced, in view of 
the fact that no request had reached the Speaker in writing. Finally, 
the Speaker seemed to waive the question of procedure, and asked 
the House whether there was any opposition to the substitution of 
the word “ ask ” for the word u demand.” The Premier and Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer (M. de Smet de Naeyer) thereupon declared 
that he did oppose such a substitution, and a violent tumult was 
the result.* In this attitude, the Premier was supported by M. 
Woeste, and his opposition, apparently, rendered the substitution of 
the word impossible. 

147 Members took part in the vote on that portion of the Resolu¬ 
tion of M. Masson. There were 86 Noes and 60 Ayes, with one ab¬ 
stention. Majority, 26. 

Thereupon the Speaker put M. Beernaert’s Resolution to the 
vote, in which 134 members took part, there being 80 Noes and 54 
abstentions, various members explaining why they had abstained. 
The Speaker thereupon put the Order of the Day of M. Coifs, reading 
as follows:— 

“ The House, considering that grave abuses take place in the Congo, 
considering that notwithstanding reiterated promises they have not been 
remedied, considering that it results from the Report of the Commission 
of Inquiry that ‘ officers commanding expeditions against the natives 
have thought themselves at war, have acted as though they were at war, 
and that that was the intention, moreover, of their chiefs,’ without the 
superior authorities having even dissuaded them from doing so, calls upon 
the Government to suspend the authorisation to Belgian officers to go to 
the Congo until a new state of affairs has been inaugurated compatible 
with the dignity of the Belgian army, and passes to the Order of the 
Day.” 

119 Members took part in this vote. There were 88 Noes, 26 Ayes, 
and 5 abstentions. The Members who abstained gave reasons for 
doing so. This closed the proceedings. 

* It seems unnecessary to reproduce here the personalities exchanged between 
hon. members. 


o 


LB My'’07 



1 


ft 


> 











V «\ * 


\ 


* A* 

o>' - > 

* ,6 V <* * 

. o N c , 

0 ° ' 'P 

•% c-'v 



.V <p, 


o <^‘<V O 
, s- v A 3 * 

+ tr i r s 



.v* V "A 



P A V 1 


X 00 ^ 




,. -fi 




/V'"<,\" 1 0 O^c o " 

- *>, ^ ^ OQ \ 

= ^ ^ 

V--VV • * f >;^Tf<v<,. „>/*-•;/;,„ ?... ’ 

* .V V ✓ *> , f ^ * - A^ ' 

^ * tr&Hfe. * ^r, ,\V •* sC\ r<> fh. ' .O 






^y//svm v. ✓* ^\\\\S" > v V* ^ 

N 0 •’ \X>- fl -*X / s m/^- ^N°' \^ y * „ ^ * 

"j i r * 


<b << 


iG 




^ o 

Bfe * v' 




-V - ^ «> V 

, —V > A ^ 

<*■ X / . . s S \ ^ ^ 0 * K 

^ c 0 N c « '<£ 4^ . <* v 1 8 * 

' ' A ' y '^V O^ ** , , ■>- V 

a ^ ■* Oft' 

* >0o^ * 

. A 





^ ** 




v N /^’ J r - * y ^ \i • rp» 

> *"'• V aB# v> N \-a 

. A ^ r ^ r ^ ^ ^ 

-X /A <v 


<« ^V \Y* 

r ^ ,CV 



^ ^ e y A O 

o'- 18 * ^ ^ 0 o ?. ^ N c y- 

^ 1 ^ - °o 0 ° k » c _^v *' ^ 

f* 



v^-v; 

c ' ^V V? fc ‘ 

V*:MM$: $ O', * 

^ cO O " 

•> .x 4 . 



-/ ^ V 

.. ^ o o x 

^ a 4 ^ 

•>, ^ , 

_ ^ _ ' \ V X. C>* 

y NNJ ^ vl^ ^ 

». 3 N0^ ,# V. » 


*« 


l\ 


^ ,<^ v 


A A 






'. ^ y 

/,/ % 

^ y o,^ / w 

n,o' 

- A *+ > ^5 


o y . Nr ^ v0, '“ <* c r 

\9 V V 1 ' ^ ’ N ° v N ^ * ^ *«/ 

^ <1^ ^ * ^n aV 

° V « ^ilK. r- ^ <$> m 


* 



V \ 





































A 



- 1 - v' *'*' ; y«., v— >;: 

° 0 * r^Nfy * ^ <V v 

; "o <7 : - +j. & 

o5 


^ . \° <2* t 

*« >' *' c .^°° s ..,%/*» ««•> v * 

-X 9 <^p \> *'*»a 7> 

' ' V ■* a**-?**. „ •% .-. - .as, v -, A-o 

"tf* SS % * pK\^^/}l - '> t * /? * 

* \v « ^\M//A ° ^ c* o 

, # \ f St' / \ \lg§v /' % l w . , 

^ .v,., %• '°*^ ^ " <^r \'a ■x, »a a j ,v 

* ^ 1 °'0 
* 



^ y 


O v\^ </> y ■' >• CD (1 

** % ° *>#7 ,«.** ^ 

* <* c> A ^ 

^ y 0 * A. "* .aG 
’ - ^ rx? C 0 

0 ° * 


N c 




aO 


V * * * 0, 

X 4 Va v ^ .< 

^ ‘v « ° v *» 

z \V ^ 

° A '- 


* " AVTvTi^ Sgg p >y 

47 ° ^ x<-, r y3w&' p°-< 

.>' / °^X7,V s >'- 

I *||SfekV %y * 

* /% -W: 

nNc X"* * * * S ' \^ lift ?-/. ^ 0 v k ^ aG ^ *% A 

~ - °o 0 0^ /"• * * ' '/\. V . 

7 /* *b o< o' -^JrV'^. * 

^ ° *1 ^v 

X ^ ^\\\W > if ^ ^ 

\ N ~0 C‘ ^ c or ^ 

^0 ’O, ^ k , n ^ ^ ^ ^ x - , 

’• ' 0- 








V.S ko 1 ' \^’ 

v ^ Y ’ >0/ ' o 

4 \V AfX^r^ 1 ,^ ^ <£. /X ^ 

ft' c? « 

> tP„ 7 ; 


: ^ ^ . 
"*• /A >w ""“ 




- ^ ^ 


^ %<$ . 




* 8 , 
y> 

t/" a 

\ 

< 

<v 



2: 


c 

c o ‘ * * s ^ A ^ 1 , 1 » ^/a y 0 * K ^ <*. * s s /V 

' ^ v^ 7 :yi: ’ ^ c ° ? . ■‘ ll* *, a s 


. 0O x. 


► . ■ n £~v y N N>^' <r 

^81^° 7 0 ‘ , 9 * 0 M 0 ' X S 

> ^ V k s L^J'' ^ v* ^ 1l, ° 

•x, a v * 



a^ v ,J X. o ~ <7 A - » .A ■% o 

X >, o 'V * v? ■> * ^\v ^ ^ 

> A ..,..., v“* ‘*''f V:’.-l:X' 0 * ‘ 





'js 6 O 

° or 

7 A, 7 

,)■ / V ^rrr'.o 0 

\> »’*», 7> ,0^ s s 

" ffl 9 '- - e. A 4 ' + 

' ¥ S*‘ (* v> C5 




“ y ^ 


\ !> V ☆ n ^ 

V ^ u Z' 

i y / 





























